In the real world the good ones are making money, providing jobs and creating wealth, the bad ones are going broke and capitalism is working just fine, thanks.
The ones making money are also the ones that are exploiting people and furthering corruption in small governments around the world to get a better deal for themselves. The ones that die seem to be quite good at enriching a few top executives at the expense of everyone else. Seems like the ones who were guiding the company should take the fall, but it never seems to work that way.
comanies exist to make money, pure and simple. Paying employees less than they are worth does not make money because they soon leave for greener pa$ture$.
Christ you're ignorant! I've been working in the real world for quite some time now, probably longer than you, so lay off the stupid arguments. Companies exist to make money. I'll agree with that. The problem is that if they think they can make more money by breaking the law or recklessly endangering others, they'll do it. Look at Monsanto. They covered up their pollution for as long as possible and milked PCBs for every penny they could get. The sad thing is that they will still probably come out ahead (because our government is FAR too lenient on corporate and white-collar crime), thus validating their actions because they turned a profit. As for employees leaving for greener pastures, that can't happen until their contract is up and/or they get their greencard. Employers just milk them while they can, then they bring in another.
Alright, as you're obviously a fucking moron, I'll type slowly.
Even if it were true that companies could shortchange these people it would not be a bad deal for them.
So you're basically saying that it's ok for US companies to ignore the law and give these foreign workers the shaft because they'll still make more here than they would in their home country? No fucking wonder corporations have run amok. We have too many people like you that will jump through all sorts of hoops to try to justify their behavior. These companies are lying to the people of the US and to the US government. There is no justification for it.
Let's see. If you can shortchange the employee, and pay them 50% of what you'd have to pay an American worker, then that's a decent chunk of change. Combine this with the fact that you can get them to work more hours, and you're doing even better. Then, understand that they are not "handed a manual on the plane trip over", but already know their job in many cases, and you're getting a pretty good worker that will work more hours for less pay. Sounds like a great proposition for someone who is "in business to make money." Now figure in the ability to contract them to work for your company for so many years, and you're pretty much guaranteed a good return on your "investment."
H1-B workers make a shitload of money compared to what they can get at home and that it's a great opportunity.
This is utter bullshit. What difference their earning potential in their home country make? If they are working in America, then American companies should have to pay them according to the going rates in the American labor market, not just "more than they could make in their home country." Sounds like an excuse for letting companies get away with this kind of bullshit.
If that's the entirety of the message that was decoded, then you'd be correct. Since the previous poster claimed that "they didn't bother" to copyright it, rather than "they couldn't" copyright it, I assumed that there was more to it than just the math problem.
But this knee-jerk aversion to a parent company just because it's a big company? Or because of AOL's commitment to actual ease of use that Cox, jwz and RMS all abhor?
Or perhaps it's AOL/TW's support of unethical legislation (DMCA) that makes him prefer not to work for them rather than the senseless blather you are spewing?
So the main difference between you and Alan is that you both draw the line regarding what you will do for money in a different place. You draw it at spying for an enemy state. He draws it at working for a corporation that he believes to be unethical. It comes down to a matter of opinion, about which reasonable people could disagree. I see nothing wrong with his decision at all.
So the main difference between you and Alan is that you both draw the line regarding what you will do for money in a different place. You draw it at spying for an enemy state. He draws it at working for a corporation that he believes to be unethical. It comes down to a matter of opinion, about which reasonable people could disagree. I see nothing wrong with his decision at all.
Well, apparently Alan feels that he would be giving up way too much of his self-esteem if he were to stay and work for AOL/TW. I can't say I blame him. I doubt he'll have any trouble putting food on the table because of that decision.
IIRC, it costs about $10K, and you have to give them a bunch of info about yourself. Then they have the FBI do a thorough background check on you. (They are backlogged right now, and have some other agency helping out. Another TLA, but I can't remember the letters at the moment.. OG.. something I think).
I already write to my congresspeople. All I get back from them are stupid form-letters that prove to me that they had no idea what I said. They must just have staffers scan them for keywords and tack my name onto a list for whatever form-letter they think is appropriate. It's fucked up. All I can do is vote against them and tell my meager group of friends and family why I'm going to vote against so-and-so (if I can do so with a fairly clear conscience, sometimes the alternatives are actually worse).
So basically, anything before 1923 is public domain. Anything since is subject to our current eternal copyright? That doesn't make me feel any better. And it still means that everything created in my lifetime will still be under copyright when I die. Somehow that just doesn't seem to jive with what I think copyright was intended to do.
And don't forget who pays for the airplay. The labels, of course. Even though they were prohibited from doing so by the so-called "payola" laws, they have simply added a layer of middlemen so that the payments don't come directly from the labels anymore. These middlemen decide what gets airplay, and they are paid by the labels.
Not necessarily. Hell, he's probably more qualified to take on the bigger issues than most twits that run for a city office. As long as he has the sense to consult the right people, he can make the right decisions in areas where he's not an expert.
You're probably right. NSI hijacks people's domains all the time and doens't get in trouble. Makes me wonder if there actually is any law that prevents it. If they hijacked a TLD, I'm sure everyone would make a law against it real quick though.
Aside from your first 2 sentences, what the fuck does your post have to do with anything? What difference does it make how good Windows was when it was released? How does that have the slightest fucking thing to do with the argument here? Try backing up the first 2 sentences with evidence and drop the rest of the bullshit.
I'm pretty much convinced that/. has delegated all story submission reviewing and accepting/rejecting to a not-very-well-trained chimp. That would explain the propensity for duplicate postings, and why good submissions get rejected, and then a crappy submission about the same thing gets accepted. I can't think of any other reason for such screwups, can you?
You just walk right up to it and start talking. Be warned, however, that it's about as effective as speaking to a congresscritter if you aren't handing them a big bag of money.
Slashdot Mirror
In the real world the good ones are making money, providing jobs and creating wealth, the bad ones are going broke and capitalism is working just fine, thanks.
The ones making money are also the ones that are exploiting people and furthering corruption in small governments around the world to get a better deal for themselves. The ones that die seem to be quite good at enriching a few top executives at the expense of everyone else. Seems like the ones who were guiding the company should take the fall, but it never seems to work that way.
comanies exist to make money, pure and simple. Paying employees less than they are worth does not make money because they soon leave for greener pa$ture$.
Christ you're ignorant! I've been working in the real world for quite some time now, probably longer than you, so lay off the stupid arguments. Companies exist to make money. I'll agree with that. The problem is that if they think they can make more money by breaking the law or recklessly endangering others, they'll do it. Look at Monsanto. They covered up their pollution for as long as possible and milked PCBs for every penny they could get. The sad thing is that they will still probably come out ahead (because our government is FAR too lenient on corporate and white-collar crime), thus validating their actions because they turned a profit. As for employees leaving for greener pastures, that can't happen until their contract is up and/or they get their greencard. Employers just milk them while they can, then they bring in another.
Alright, as you're obviously a fucking moron, I'll type slowly.
Even if it were true that companies could shortchange these people it would not be a bad deal for them.
So you're basically saying that it's ok for US companies to ignore the law and give these foreign workers the shaft because they'll still make more here than they would in their home country? No fucking wonder corporations have run amok. We have too many people like you that will jump through all sorts of hoops to try to justify their behavior. These companies are lying to the people of the US and to the US government. There is no justification for it.
Let's see. If you can shortchange the employee, and pay them 50% of what you'd have to pay an American worker, then that's a decent chunk of change. Combine this with the fact that you can get them to work more hours, and you're doing even better. Then, understand that they are not "handed a manual on the plane trip over", but already know their job in many cases, and you're getting a pretty good worker that will work more hours for less pay. Sounds like a great proposition for someone who is "in business to make money." Now figure in the ability to contract them to work for your company for so many years, and you're pretty much guaranteed a good return on your "investment."
H1-B workers make a shitload of money compared to what they can get at home and that it's a great opportunity.
This is utter bullshit. What difference their earning potential in their home country make? If they are working in America, then American companies should have to pay them according to the going rates in the American labor market, not just "more than they could make in their home country." Sounds like an excuse for letting companies get away with this kind of bullshit.
Trolls don't read articles.
If that's the entirety of the message that was decoded, then you'd be correct. Since the previous poster claimed that "they didn't bother" to copyright it, rather than "they couldn't" copyright it, I assumed that there was more to it than just the math problem.
but you need to do at least something so you're able to prove legally that you wrote it.
You mean like emailing it out to 100 people?
I doubt they even bothered to copyright it.
Anything you write is automatically copyrighted. You don't have to register it or anything anymore.
But this knee-jerk aversion to a parent company just because it's a big company? Or because of AOL's commitment to actual ease of use that Cox, jwz and RMS all abhor?
Or perhaps it's AOL/TW's support of unethical legislation (DMCA) that makes him prefer not to work for them rather than the senseless blather you are spewing?
So the main difference between you and Alan is that you both draw the line regarding what you will do for money in a different place. You draw it at spying for an enemy state. He draws it at working for a corporation that he believes to be unethical. It comes down to a matter of opinion, about which reasonable people could disagree. I see nothing wrong with his decision at all.
So the main difference between you and Alan is that you both draw the line regarding what you will do for money in a different place. You draw it at spying for an enemy state. He draws it at working for a corporation that he believes to be unethical. It comes down to a matter of opinion, about which reasonable people could disagree. I see nothing wrong with his decision at all.
Well, apparently Alan feels that he would be giving up way too much of his self-esteem if he were to stay and work for AOL/TW. I can't say I blame him. I doubt he'll have any trouble putting food on the table because of that decision.
Maybe you should go look up the definition of Godwin's Law now. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Why the hell would you want to have a monarchy anywhere?!
IIRC, it costs about $10K, and you have to give them a bunch of info about yourself. Then they have the FBI do a thorough background check on you. (They are backlogged right now, and have some other agency helping out. Another TLA, but I can't remember the letters at the moment.. OG.. something I think).
If you can show a pressing need for it, they will expedite it. Otherwise, yeah, it can easily take over a year.
I already write to my congresspeople. All I get back from them are stupid form-letters that prove to me that they had no idea what I said. They must just have staffers scan them for keywords and tack my name onto a list for whatever form-letter they think is appropriate. It's fucked up. All I can do is vote against them and tell my meager group of friends and family why I'm going to vote against so-and-so (if I can do so with a fairly clear conscience, sometimes the alternatives are actually worse).
Somebody mod the AC up!! :)
So basically, anything before 1923 is public domain. Anything since is subject to our current eternal copyright? That doesn't make me feel any better. And it still means that everything created in my lifetime will still be under copyright when I die. Somehow that just doesn't seem to jive with what I think copyright was intended to do.
And don't forget who pays for the airplay. The labels, of course. Even though they were prohibited from doing so by the so-called "payola" laws, they have simply added a layer of middlemen so that the payments don't come directly from the labels anymore. These middlemen decide what gets airplay, and they are paid by the labels.
Not necessarily. Hell, he's probably more qualified to take on the bigger issues than most twits that run for a city office. As long as he has the sense to consult the right people, he can make the right decisions in areas where he's not an expert.
You're probably right. NSI hijacks people's domains all the time and doens't get in trouble. Makes me wonder if there actually is any law that prevents it. If they hijacked a TLD, I'm sure everyone would make a law against it real quick though.
Aside from your first 2 sentences, what the fuck does your post have to do with anything? What difference does it make how good Windows was when it was released? How does that have the slightest fucking thing to do with the argument here? Try backing up the first 2 sentences with evidence and drop the rest of the bullshit.
I'm pretty much convinced that /. has delegated all story submission reviewing and accepting/rejecting to a not-very-well-trained chimp. That would explain the propensity for duplicate postings, and why good submissions get rejected, and then a crappy submission about the same thing gets accepted. I can't think of any other reason for such screwups, can you?
People high on marijuana tend to drive slower rather than faster. Drunk people tend to drive faster rather than slower.
You just walk right up to it and start talking. Be warned, however, that it's about as effective as speaking to a congresscritter if you aren't handing them a big bag of money.