Slashdot Mirror

19 states have laws requiring rest or meal breaks. 31 do not.

The current business surveys show that lack of demand is why most businesses are holding back on hiring. The uncertainty claims are mostly a tea party fiction. The number of businessmen complaining about regs and taxes is about what it has been for the past 20 years. The number complaining about lack of demand has skyrocketed. NFIB surveys have the data. Also, the current research suggests that stock returns always do best during the 3rd year of a President's term regardless of which party holds Congress or the White House and that gridlock has a small negative effect compared to non-gridlock. Don't believe the hype that stock returns will be great because the Republican's won. The data don't support that.

Caveat: IANAL, but I used to work as a consultant for a company that helped with retention policies and the like. From what I recall, just deciding to delete all email over 180 days does not comprise a decent retention policy. I believe you are expected to keep all emails that contain data related to the conduct of your business for a reasonable period of time, and sometimes (depending on the industry) for specific periods of time.

There is a short summary for small businesses here:
http://www.nfib.com/object/IO_21047.html

You for sure and certain want to read through the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation if you are in the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act

Yes, deleting your email after a fixed period of time and consistently following that practice can be considered an Email Retention policy, but the one point I recall hearing hammered home was that "30/60/90 is not a retention policy" (referring to stages of retaining emails). If I recall correctly the consensus was that email should be retained for varying lengths of time based on the importance of the contents and that some mail should be kept indefinitely depending on legislation and subject matter.

If you get hit with a lawsuit and during the discovery phase of the trial are unable to produce critical email because you had a policy of just deleting it after X days, the Judge may tend to favor the other side on the assumption that you did so deliberately. You should really consult with a legal firm that specializes in crafting suitable retention policies rather than just adopting a blanket policy like that. In my unqualified opinion, just adopting a blanket policy of deleting all email content, regardless of content, after X days might imply to a judge that your company really didn't give it adequate thought and the relatively short period might imply that you thought email might contain incriminating content you preferred to hide. Remember that the company who sues you will most likely retain those emails longer than you, giving the impression you were nervous about the email's content when you deleted it.

If a company corresponds with another company via email, and in the course of doing so uses an email message to reach a business agreement, that email is I believe considered a legal document. If you go ahead and do the work but are unable to produce the agreement to do so down the road, you might end up unpaid at the least. If things go badly you might end up liable for damages etc. Business email should not be casually deleted. Your retention policy should, I believe, differentiate between unimportant email that doesn't deal with business matters, moderately important stuff that you might want to retain, and important correspondence that you will want to keep until long after its relevant.

Here is the company I was associated with. I am sure they are not the only ones you can talk to, but they might be a good place to start:

http://www.cohasset.com/

If a producer wants customers, the burden is on the producer to price their products at a level that people are willing to pay.

that is exactly what they do. pricing is based on production costs with profit based on how many people are willing to pay a certain price. the sweet spot is maximizing the amount of profit of a product so that the most people by it at the highest price. just because you are unwilling to pay a price doesnt mean it is too high. i think 15-20 bucks is a decent price for a lifetime of 45-70 minutes of music. 9.75 is a bit much for most movies so i wait until it hits the cheap theaters, which are cheaper than renting it, w/ better quality than my home.

that said i agree that the record companies are going about it wrong, but under the current system it is not legal to 'pirate' music. so yes, you would be a 'criminal'. the studios are lettting people know that, yes, you can get in trouble for such a thing. it hurts the companies on many levels.

somehow the mantra of 'overpriced music, execs screwing us!' doesnt have the same ring as riding on the front of the bus. so civil disobedience is out. perhaps enough customers are still accept the price point. even with paying legal fees.

A while back, on the radio (WTOP in the Washington, DC area), they played an advertisement for a small business association, or something like that. One of the benefits of joining was that they had offered a group health plan to the member companies.

I don't know for sure if it was specifically a small business association, or that's what I just remember it as, or if it was a local or national thing, but you can try asking around. (or someone else might be able to follow up with some knowledge of these sorts of groups)

A quick look online suggests that the ASBA has some sort of discount on health insurance ... that might've been what I remember. As does NFIB ... just type 'small business association' into your favorite search engine.

Some states make this paid timeoff. For those states that don't require paid timeoff, or do not require timeoff at all, go vote on your dime for someone that will make this happen! ;)

That said they're heavier and more cumbersome to move, they use substantially more electricity, produce substantially more heat, and take up more space that could be better used in a variety of ways... despite being CRT free my living room is cramped as it is.

There are many compelling reasons to purchase LCDs even if you don't take into account that the quality of CRTs degrades much quicker than LCDs, and without regular tuneups the initial difference in picture quality will become relatively meaningless.

Sandia's intelligence lab converts business data into 3-D images

I know the taxpayers paid for it, but it always seams like it gets exclusivly [sic] licensed to some company for next to nothing then that company charges the people that paid for it in the first place a lot of money to use it.

You're a wisely cynical man.

In the light of the 9/11 Commission's report of the multiple failures of the CIA and FBI that allowed the terrorists to attack us in 2001, in the light of Sibel Edmonds's allegations that the FBI intentionally destroyed translations of intercepted terrorist conversations, in light of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report about systemic CIA failures to provide accurate intelligence about WMDs in Iraq, why am I less than thrilled to discover that Sandia National Laboratories' businesses?

When I further learn that "Sandia officials say tech firms or venture capitalists can use the lab on a per-request basis," I begin to understand that Sandia's Corporate Business Development and Partnerships aren't using my tax dollars to protect me, they're providing corporate welfare by dong the Research and Development that business wants but doesn't want to pay for.

Remember, these are the same businesses that vociferously object to government programs that might compete with them, whether that's sponsorship of Open Source Software or rural electric cooperatives or IRS software that might be efficient enough to cost H&R Block. These are the same corporations that got a provision added to the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill to prevent the government from getting discounts by buying those drugs in bulk, but which profit from research funded by the National Institutes of Health.

These are the same corporations that want Ashcroft's Department of Justice to stop worrying so much about fixing the FBI's failures, so it can spend government time -- and your money -- prosecuting civil -- civil, not criminal -- suits against file traders under the PIRATE Act on behalf of those corporations. If you need to sue a corporation, you're on your own; maybe you'll get some coupons out of a class action suit. But if the corporation wants to sue you, they get the assistance of top government lawyers and FBI agents packing guns and warrants.

And this just after the U.S. House passed the biggest corporate tax cuts in twenty years, because existing direct subsidies -- or less politely, corporate welfare -- will no longer be permitted under World Trade Organization rules. Even House Republicans admit this tax cut "is riddled with special-interest provisions that would further complicate the tax code, send jobs overseas and worsen a federal deficit already at record highs."

Does anyone really expect Sandia's going to release the source code to the data mining software to us, the citizens who have to pay for it?

Be proud, Americans, of how fat your labor makes your corporate masters! What a joy it is to serve them! It is your privilege to work long hours and pay high taxes so your masters can buy their yachts -- and buy the laws that enslave you.

America, Of the People, By the People, for the Pe^H^H Corporations

Huh? Having the right to ply your trade does not give you the right to rent that particular storefront. Go to the strip mall across the street or around the corner or whatever - I'm sure they'll be more than happy to have you if your plan is a good as you say.

I'm talking about thousands of DVDs, with hundreds of the same title. Columbia House doesn't allow that, and that in itself is a restraint on free trade.

See, I think you're confused about this whole restraint of trade thing. Just because you have the right to try to conduct a business of some sort, that doesn't give you the right to force other people to do business with you. Your main problem in suing everyone who declined to deal with you wouldn't be a lack of money, it would be a lack of a case that doesn't suck.

I'm just saying that the system itself discourages small businesses and competition. Between zoning laws and licensing issues, the things I've already mentioned and the many more that I haven't even brought up, it's very hard to compete with any large company. On top of that, most businesses utilize economies of scale. Without millions or even billions of dollars, or the connections to borrow it, you can't even think about competing.

Wow, it's almost like the 600,000 members of the NFIB don't even really exist. And the millions of people they employ. And the 40% of the US GDP produced by small business...

Building your own small business is hard work, but it's hardly impossible. It sounds to me like you hit one of the more minor speedbumps you were likely to encounter, and immediately threw up your hands and blamed the system for your failure to get off the ground. Did I miss anything?

Better pony up some protection money.

Ok. So this could be the "small business argument", if it is a decent way to make money, then it should be presented to the NFIB, America's most powerful small business lobbying organization.