Why should he have to prove anything?
on
1984, today.
·
· Score: 1
Since his employer is the one suing him, the burden of proof should be on them. That is the way the legal system is supposed to work in this country (aren't we still innocent until proven guilty? or is that just another load they feed us to get us to sit idly by while those with the money do as they please?). If the law has somehow changed, I want to know when, why, and who was responsible. Otherwise, unless they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he came up with his idea on company time, then they don't have a case. I seriously doubt they can prove that, so I agree with the other posters above who say that DSC is 100% wrong here, for the reason I just gave as well as the reasons they gave.
Even if they do find some loophole in the law that allows them to win a case against him, it's still wrong. If I were him there's no way I'd give people like that my idea. I'd be thinking up some idea that I know won't work and give them that instead. Since he hasn't done anything with his idea, he can't show that it ever worked. They don't know what his idea is, so they will have to take whatever he gives them.
So the "laws of nature" mandate using jet-propelled, computer-controlled nuclear missiles against entire cities of people you've never met, eh?
I'd say you are pretty much correct here. Animals use whatever means they have in order to defeat an enemy. Humans weren't given neat stingers where our butts are. We don't have venom glands. We don't have really big teeth or claws. We aren't exceptionally big, strong, or fast. We don't blend in very well in most cases. We don't have much protection from the elements. What we do have is the intelligence to allow us to overcome all the things that seem to be deficiencies when we first look at them. We wanted protection and food, so we made clubs and spears and such. Then we went out and killed animals that we would otherwise have been no match for.
You see, when two countries have opposite views on something and neither side is willing to compromise thier stance, there is little choice but to force the other side to comply. That way you either get what you want and weaken the other side to the point where they can't object, or you are weakened and lose the ability to take what you want.
Animals fight all the time. As another poster said, chimps have been seen to fight with other groups of chimps. It happens with alot of the big mammals. You think rams butting heads to see who will be the dominant male is not violent? I believe lions and other pack animals also have violent conflicts to resolve leadership problems.
We've just elevated things to a much higher level. One could wonder if our intelligence combined with our violent instincts could be our downfall. If the enemy keeps inventing stronger weapons, you must also invent stronger weapons or risk being made subservient to or destroyed by that enemy. Unfortunately, I don't think humans have hit their full destructive potential yet.
That's pretty scary, but it still conforms with the laws of nature I think. We are using whatever means we can to defeat or deter enemies. Luckily, as in the animal world, the threat of violence is often enough to deter an enemy. If they believe you have the power to kill or at least seriously hurt them, they may decide that it's not worth fighting.
He's still chairman though I believe. Either way it wouldn't matter. As evidenced by the many emails the government has presented, the sickness runs much deeper than Gates and Ballmer's positions. MS is a hydra. Kill one head and another will rise to take it's place.
Of course there could be other reasons that he should disqualify himself from making a decision on this issue. Does he have friends/relatives/children who are or intend to become lawyers? That could constitute a conflict of interest I would think.
I've always assumed that "practicing law" meant defending someone in court or representing yourself as a lawyer when giving legal advice. Does it also mean giving legal advice whether you represent yourself as a lawyer or not? Does that mean I'm breaking the law if I advise someone not to agree to a certain EULA? Would I be breaking the law if I helped someone draw up a contract using legal books as a reference? Exactly where is the line?
No, citizens are expected to know the law. Period. If they have to hire a lawyer to inform them of the law, then that's their right. Sure, you won't get arrested for not knowing civil law. At least not right away. You could simply lose your house, car, money, credit, family, etc. You get the point. If it happens, you can't say "Wait! I didn't know that's how the laws worked!" The court will have no sympathy. You should have informed yourself. Once you have lost all that, then you're likely to do something to get arrested.
Legal software is used for more than just drawing up wills. It is used for all sorts of contracts. I have the right to go to a lawyer. If I could afford to do so, I probably would. However, if I can't afford to have a lawyer advise me on matters such as a will or some sort of contract, then shouldn't I have the right to obtain at least some legal advice/information from whatever source is available to me?
It would certainly be better than if I attempted to write a will or contract on my own. This software would probably not be as good as a good lawyer, but how many people can afford to have a good lawyer really look at their case or problem and take an interest in it? Most are lucky if they can get a 15-30 minute consultation. Some advice and information is better than none at all. I think the software should be labeled with a disclaimer that is displayed prominently on the box. Then people will be warned. If they choose to use the software anyway, then that should be their right.
Nobody says I can't buy a book that gives legal advice. Nobody says I can't give someone else legal advice as long as I don't misrepresent myself as an attorney. Why shouldn't I be able to get advice from software? In the end, it's me that pays the price. Whether I get bad advice from a computer or bad advice from a lawyer, I will be the one to suffer for it, so I should be the one to choose.
I'm also from Texas and I would certainly hope that this could not become a law simply because a lawyer wants it to be so. I wonder if this judge has friends/relatives that are lawyers? Wouldn't that be a conflict of interest?
Just found this article on The Register. Civix-DDI says it has some patents on electronic mapping that Microsoft, AOL, Yahoo!, Rand-McNally, Infoseek, Lycos and the Denver Post newspaper are infringing on. Hmm.. I haven't looked up the patents yet so I'm not sure how valid their claims are. I will in a bit if someone doesn't beat me to it.
1. Who are you trying to kid? It's turned on by default and even though you can turn it off, it gets turned back on every time you reboot.
2. Yeah, they probably worked that stuff out well in advance.
3. Not necessarily, but it is definitely possible. Intel may even push for this because it might require you to leave the PSN feature turned on in order to use software that requires it. Nobody cares about high end Unix stuff because it's not mass-market.
4. Shrug. They'll work this out too.
5. It's more than a few thousand geeks that are overclocking. Even mainstream PC magazines tell you how to overclock in 3 easy steps. I don't think tracking it would help Intel much except to let them know how widespread it is and decide if it's worth it to them to devote resources to making the chips un-overclockable.
It's not FUD. There are legitimate concerns here. You are ignorant if you think something like this won't be abused to the fullest extent possible by people seeking money. It won't just be e-commerce sites tracking you. It will be every idiot and company with a web site who hope to earn some cash by selling your browsing habits to anyone who will pay.
Actually, BFRIS is supposed to be the first shrink-wrapped playable-out-of-the-box Linux game. With Abuse, you had to download a Linux executable I believe. That it happens to also run on Win95 and NT just helps them make some decent money on it. I hope they do really well.
yeah.. I think we all probably dreamed up alot of things when we were kids that are just now being developed or are still being researched. I remember back in third grade, drawing jets that used thrust vectoring (not for vtol like the harrier, I mean in-flight). Granted, I didn't have a clue how it would work, but I thought it would be cool if they could use flaps or movable nozzles to allow the thrust to push them in different directions. Maybe this is why we should find better ways to educate people while allowing them to pursue their interests to the fullest extent possible.
I like it. At least it's something. I don't expect it to influence them. They tend to get mad rather than get smart, but money is what gets their attention, so you're on the right track. We need publicity, and a way to inform the public and combat the deceptions that the RIAA spews.
Yeah.. class action wouldn't work. Wrong approach. It would have to be a constitutional issue here in the States. Some sort of free speech issue I would guess. I think that posting peoples interpretation of the lyrics should be legal. On the other hand, many albums include lyrics. Should it then be illegal to post those lyrics on the net? I don't think it should, since the music industry does not sell it's lyrics, they are simply a part of the song, and knowing them may help people have a better appreciation for the work of the artists involved. It doesn't seem to cause any harm whatsoever to the music industry or the artists themselves. As long as the lyrics are properly attributed to the artist (and possibly distributor too), there shouldn't be any problem with making them available on the net. Either way, it doesn't help the guys in Switzerland. They have their own crappy laws to deal with.
Patenting genes is like trying to patent electricity or hair or something else that was never invented. They are discovered. You could patent processes such as forms of gene therapy, but nobody should ever be allowed to patent any gene. Of course I don't know why the government would ever let something like reason stand in the way of making money.
Most winners are winners because they are optimistic, proactive, take-charge kinds of people. They have this attitude in whatever they do, and not surprisingly they usually succeed. Most losers on the other hand are losers because they are pessimistic, reactive, and think the world is out to get them. This attitued gets them nothing but failure, which of course they blame on bad luck.
You talk as if everyone started at the same level. I'd have to dig to see if any research on this has been done, but I'll bet that at least a majority of the top 2% in this country came from wealthy families. The rich get richer. It doesn't even take a whole lot of smarts. You can hire people for that. They'll make you richer just so they can get a little piece of it.
I won't argue that some people get rich through hard work and a good attitude. I just think that alot more get rich because they started off with alot more than most.
Seen the poverty even in supposedly developed cities such as Paris. There are far more homeless, far more unemployeed.
Ok.. let's see your proof. I don't know whether France has a higher unemployment level than the U.S. or not, but if you're going to ask others for proof, then you should provide proof to support your own statements. Frankly, I don't really care which country has the higher unemployment. There are many more things involved in whether a country becomes successful or not. IP is just one of many, but you talk as if it is the make or break factor.
Lets just review IP quickly. If you where to kill IP as we know it. The following jobs would be destroyed:
Wrong. If IP as we know it was killed, something would take it's place. That's the point here. IP law doesn't have to be killed off altogether. It does however need to be fixed so that it's possible for more than a handful of companies to make real progress in this country.
3) Authors. Companies like O'Reilly would not exist. Tom Clancy, Grisham, Follet, etc either. Any publisher could just steal their work and publish it themselves for a couple bucks. Such work does not come cheap.
Here you're talking about copyright. That's a different subject. Actually, I think that people try to patent AND copyright software. That's just plain stupid. Either it's an original work of art and can be copyrighted or it's an invention of a process or device and can be patented. I don't see how they can have it both ways.
I'm NOT so bleeping sick of this stuff...
on
Why Work Sucks
·
· Score: 1
I've gotta agree with you. I noticed the same things about his post. He was free to just pick up and move across the company. That's great as long as you don't have a family to worry about. If you devote all your time to work and continuing education, you'll probably continue to do fairly well. Unfortunately that leave very little time for this thing called a life. I don't think we were all put on this planet to work until we die. What's the point? If we can't spend a reasonable amount of time with friends and family, then the great job doesn't do much for our lives overall. There is more to this whole issue than how much money you make. There's quality of life.. for you and for your family.
the average individual is far MORE empowered today than ever before.
How so?
e.g. it's far easier to move between income strata now than ever before. 30 years ago, if you were born poor, you likely stayed poor.
Perhaps, if you have pretty intelligent parents (not all that common if you're poor) or you're a very wise child who can understand the real value of an education in order to work for the grades that may let you get a college education. Other than that, most poor people don't get much of a chance. If your family is fairly well off, then you don't have to live a perfect life. You can screw up a few times and still end up with a job and a decent future.
the average individual has MORE ability to think of something grand and spread it to the outside world.
So? We can say whatever we want.. sure, but if you think of something grand, you better have access to enough money to protect that idea, or the people who have all the money will make you wish you'd never thought of it.
the average company is no MORE hardcore about not viewing their employees as interchangeable cogs. Skills / experience / etc. are MORE thoroughly rewarded now than ever before.
I definitely disagree with this. Companies are hiring and firing like mad these days. You can't pick up a paper without reading 3 stories about companies laying off a bunch of people, or (though usually less publicised) hiring a bunch of people. One company falls and another rises in it's place. Unfortunately, the people who work for these companies have absolutely no security, especially as they get older.
We are far MORE in command of our salaries than ever before in history.
Once again, how so? You've made some pretty broad, sweeping statements and given no detail or support for them. It's pretty hard to draw any conclusions from this.
Actually, in the latest X-Wing novel, one of the characters says that he was involved with a group that broadcast the destruction of the death star by hacking into the computer systems on Coruscant to bypass the Imperial propaganda. This set off a lot of celebrations... which were unfortunately later quelled by stormtroopers firing into crowds. Just thought that might be relevant.
Slashdot Mirror
Since his employer is the one suing him, the burden of proof should be on them. That is the way the legal system is supposed to work in this country (aren't we still innocent until proven guilty? or is that just another load they feed us to get us to sit idly by while those with the money do as they please?). If the law has somehow changed, I want to know when, why, and who was responsible. Otherwise, unless they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he came up with his idea on company time, then they don't have a case. I seriously doubt they can prove that, so I agree with the other posters above who say that DSC is 100% wrong here, for the reason I just gave as well as the reasons they gave.
Even if they do find some loophole in the law that allows them to win a case against him, it's still wrong. If I were him there's no way I'd give people like that my idea. I'd be thinking up some idea that I know won't work and give them that instead. Since he hasn't done anything with his idea, he can't show that it ever worked. They don't know what his idea is, so they will have to take whatever he gives them.
So the "laws of nature" mandate using jet-propelled, computer-controlled nuclear missiles against entire cities of people you've never met, eh?
I'd say you are pretty much correct here. Animals use whatever means they have in order to defeat an enemy. Humans weren't given neat stingers where our butts are. We don't have venom glands. We don't have really big teeth or claws. We aren't exceptionally big, strong, or fast. We don't blend in very well in most cases. We don't have much protection from the elements. What we do have is the intelligence to allow us to overcome all the things that seem to be deficiencies when we first look at them. We wanted protection and food, so we made clubs and spears and such. Then we went out and killed animals that we would otherwise have been no match for.
You see, when two countries have opposite views on something and neither side is willing to compromise thier stance, there is little choice but to force the other side to comply. That way you either get what you want and weaken the other side to the point where they can't object, or you are weakened and lose the ability to take what you want.
Animals fight all the time. As another poster said, chimps have been seen to fight with other groups of chimps. It happens with alot of the big mammals. You think rams butting heads to see who will be the dominant male is not violent? I believe lions and other pack animals also have violent conflicts to resolve leadership problems.
We've just elevated things to a much higher level. One could wonder if our intelligence combined with our violent instincts could be our downfall. If the enemy keeps inventing stronger weapons, you must also invent stronger weapons or risk being made subservient to or destroyed by that enemy. Unfortunately, I don't think humans have hit their full destructive potential yet.
That's pretty scary, but it still conforms with the laws of nature I think. We are using whatever means we can to defeat or deter enemies. Luckily, as in the animal world, the threat of violence is often enough to deter an enemy. If they believe you have the power to kill or at least seriously hurt them, they may decide that it's not worth fighting.
He's still chairman though I believe. Either way it wouldn't matter. As evidenced by the many emails the government has presented, the sickness runs much deeper than Gates and Ballmer's positions. MS is a hydra. Kill one head and another will rise to take it's place.
Of course there could be other reasons that he should disqualify himself from making a decision on this issue. Does he have friends/relatives/children who are or intend to become lawyers? That could constitute a conflict of interest I would think.
I've always assumed that "practicing law" meant defending someone in court or representing yourself as a lawyer when giving legal advice. Does it also mean giving legal advice whether you represent yourself as a lawyer or not? Does that mean I'm breaking the law if I advise someone not to agree to a certain EULA? Would I be breaking the law if I helped someone draw up a contract using legal books as a reference? Exactly where is the line?
No, citizens are expected to know the law. Period. If they have to hire a lawyer to inform them of the law, then that's their right. Sure, you won't get arrested for not knowing civil law. At least not right away. You could simply lose your house, car, money, credit, family, etc. You get the point. If it happens, you can't say "Wait! I didn't know that's how the laws worked!" The court will have no sympathy. You should have informed yourself. Once you have lost all that, then you're likely to do something to get arrested.
Legal software is used for more than just drawing up wills. It is used for all sorts of contracts. I have the right to go to a lawyer. If I could afford to do so, I probably would. However, if I can't afford to have a lawyer advise me on matters such as a will or some sort of contract, then shouldn't I have the right to obtain at least some legal advice/information from whatever source is available to me?
It would certainly be better than if I attempted to write a will or contract on my own. This software would probably not be as good as a good lawyer, but how many people can afford to have a good lawyer really look at their case or problem and take an interest in it? Most are lucky if they can get a 15-30 minute consultation. Some advice and information is better than none at all. I think the software should be labeled with a disclaimer that is displayed prominently on the box. Then people will be warned. If they choose to use the software anyway, then that should be their right.
Nobody says I can't buy a book that gives legal advice. Nobody says I can't give someone else legal advice as long as I don't misrepresent myself as an attorney. Why shouldn't I be able to get advice from software? In the end, it's me that pays the price. Whether I get bad advice from a computer or bad advice from a lawyer, I will be the one to suffer for it, so I should be the one to choose.
I'm also from Texas and I would certainly hope that this could not become a law simply because a lawyer wants it to be so. I wonder if this judge has friends/relatives that are lawyers? Wouldn't that be a conflict of interest?
Just found this article on The Register. Civix-DDI says it has some patents on electronic mapping that Microsoft, AOL, Yahoo!, Rand-McNally, Infoseek, Lycos and the Denver Post newspaper are infringing on. Hmm.. I haven't looked up the patents yet so I'm not sure how valid their claims are. I will in a bit if someone doesn't beat me to it.
Do you have any idea how expensive your idea would be?
Couldn't work. Too much prior art. Apes were doing it before we were even around. Long before there was a patent office :)
1. Who are you trying to kid? It's turned on by default and even though you can turn it off, it gets turned back on every time you reboot.
2. Yeah, they probably worked that stuff out well in advance.
3. Not necessarily, but it is definitely possible. Intel may even push for this because it might require you to leave the PSN feature turned on in order to use software that requires it. Nobody cares about high end Unix stuff because it's not mass-market.
4. Shrug. They'll work this out too.
5. It's more than a few thousand geeks that are overclocking. Even mainstream PC magazines tell you how to overclock in 3 easy steps. I don't think tracking it would help Intel much except to let them know how widespread it is and decide if it's worth it to them to devote resources to making the chips un-overclockable.
It's not FUD. There are legitimate concerns here. You are ignorant if you think something like this won't be abused to the fullest extent possible by people seeking money. It won't just be e-commerce sites tracking you. It will be every idiot and company with a web site who hope to earn some cash by selling your browsing habits to anyone who will pay.
Hmmmm... I like it! Maybe we could get special deals with hardware and software companies :)
I hope that was sarcasm. People scare me sometimes :)
Actually, BFRIS is supposed to be the first shrink-wrapped playable-out-of-the-box Linux game. With Abuse, you had to download a Linux executable I believe. That it happens to also run on Win95 and NT just helps them make some decent money on it. I hope they do really well.
yeah.. I think we all probably dreamed up alot of things when we were kids that are just now being developed or are still being researched. I remember back in third grade, drawing jets that used thrust vectoring (not for vtol like the harrier, I mean in-flight). Granted, I didn't have a clue how it would work, but I thought it would be cool if they could use flaps or movable nozzles to allow the thrust to push them in different directions. Maybe this is why we should find better ways to educate people while allowing them to pursue their interests to the fullest extent possible.
I like it. At least it's something. I don't expect it to influence them. They tend to get mad rather than get smart, but money is what gets their attention, so you're on the right track. We need publicity, and a way to inform the public and combat the deceptions that the RIAA spews.
Yeah.. class action wouldn't work. Wrong approach. It would have to be a constitutional issue here in the States. Some sort of free speech issue I would guess. I think that posting peoples interpretation of the lyrics should be legal. On the other hand, many albums include lyrics. Should it then be illegal to post those lyrics on the net? I don't think it should, since the music industry does not sell it's lyrics, they are simply a part of the song, and knowing them may help people have a better appreciation for the work of the artists involved. It doesn't seem to cause any harm whatsoever to the music industry or the artists themselves. As long as the lyrics are properly attributed to the artist (and possibly distributor too), there shouldn't be any problem with making them available on the net. Either way, it doesn't help the guys in Switzerland. They have their own crappy laws to deal with.
Patenting genes is like trying to patent electricity or hair or something else that was never invented. They are discovered. You could patent processes such as forms of gene therapy, but nobody should ever be allowed to patent any gene. Of course I don't know why the government would ever let something like reason stand in the way of making money.
Most winners are winners because they are optimistic, proactive, take-charge kinds of people. They have this attitude in whatever they do, and not surprisingly they usually succeed. Most losers on the other hand are losers because they are pessimistic, reactive, and think the world is out to get them. This attitued gets them nothing but failure, which of course they blame on bad luck.
You talk as if everyone started at the same level. I'd have to dig to see if any research on this has been done, but I'll bet that at least a majority of the top 2% in this country came from wealthy families. The rich get richer. It doesn't even take a whole lot of smarts. You can hire people for that. They'll make you richer just so they can get a little piece of it.
I won't argue that some people get rich through hard work and a good attitude. I just think that alot more get rich because they started off with alot more than most.
Seen the poverty even in supposedly developed cities such as Paris. There are far more homeless, far more unemployeed.
Ok.. let's see your proof. I don't know whether France has a higher unemployment level than the U.S. or not, but if you're going to ask others for proof, then you should provide proof to support your own statements. Frankly, I don't really care which country has the higher unemployment. There are many more things involved in whether a country becomes successful or not. IP is just one of many, but you talk as if it is the make or break factor.
Lets just review IP quickly. If you where to kill IP as we know it. The following jobs would be destroyed:
Wrong. If IP as we know it was killed, something would take it's place. That's the point here. IP law doesn't have to be killed off altogether. It does however need to be fixed so that it's possible for more than a handful of companies to make real progress in this country.
3) Authors. Companies like O'Reilly would not exist. Tom Clancy, Grisham, Follet, etc either. Any publisher could just steal their work and publish it themselves for a couple bucks. Such work does not come cheap.
Here you're talking about copyright. That's a different subject. Actually, I think that people try to patent AND copyright software. That's just plain stupid. Either it's an original work of art and can be copyrighted or it's an invention of a process or device and can be patented. I don't see how they can have it both ways.
I've gotta agree with you. I noticed the same things about his post. He was free to just pick up and move across the company. That's great as long as you don't have a family to worry about. If you devote all your time to work and continuing education, you'll probably continue to do fairly well. Unfortunately that leave very little time for this thing called a life. I don't think we were all put on this planet to work until we die. What's the point? If we can't spend a reasonable amount of time with friends and family, then the great job doesn't do much for our lives overall. There is more to this whole issue than how much money you make. There's quality of life.. for you and for your family.
the average individual is far MORE empowered today than ever before.
How so?
e.g. it's far easier to move between income strata now than ever before. 30 years ago, if you were born poor, you likely stayed poor.
Perhaps, if you have pretty intelligent parents (not all that common if you're poor) or you're a very wise child who can understand the real value of an education in order to work for the grades that may let you get a college education. Other than that, most poor people don't get much of a chance. If your family is fairly well off, then you don't have to live a perfect life. You can screw up a few times and still end up with a job and a decent future.
the average individual has MORE ability to think of something grand and spread it to the outside world.
So? We can say whatever we want.. sure, but if you think of something grand, you better have access to enough money to protect that idea, or the people who have all the money will make you wish you'd never thought of it.
the average company is no MORE hardcore about not viewing their employees as interchangeable cogs. Skills / experience / etc. are MORE thoroughly rewarded now than ever before.
I definitely disagree with this. Companies are hiring and firing like mad these days. You can't pick up a paper without reading 3 stories about companies laying off a bunch of people, or (though usually less publicised) hiring a bunch of people. One company falls and another rises in it's place. Unfortunately, the people who work for these companies have absolutely no security, especially as they get older.
We are far MORE in command of our salaries than ever before in history.
Once again, how so? You've made some pretty broad, sweeping statements and given no detail or support for them. It's pretty hard to draw any conclusions from this.
He did? I musta missed something...
Actually, in the latest X-Wing novel, one of the characters says that he was involved with a group that broadcast the destruction of the death star by hacking into the computer systems on Coruscant to bypass the Imperial propaganda. This set off a lot of celebrations... which were unfortunately later quelled by stormtroopers firing into crowds. Just thought that might be relevant.
Movies are a bit different... a good director can keep doing good movies. He doesn't have to crank out one per week.