Or, as a convenient alternative, I could write a bit of software that can automatically detect some instances in which I wouldn't want to be disturbed, and it can switch the phone to silent or vibrate on its own. Seems convenient.
Or, for less effort, I could buy the same software that someone else wrote...
If I had mod points, you'd get them. This whole "it's not my fault" thing is getting old.
Many people can claim ignorance as to the specifics of their mortgage, and claim that they didn't know how it worked. However, the old "too good to be true" maxim is incredibly applicable in this housing case. Bad credit, Low interest, no money down ?? How does this representation (sadly enough, common in many areas these days) sound like a good idea? Does it make sense that if you have bad credit, and no money to put down, that you should be able to afford an expensive house? Are there not red flags going off in your head when you enter into one of these deals? "What's the catch?" "Am I going to be able to afford this for the next 30 years?" Seriously...take a little bit of personal responsibility for your own greed and mismanagement of your money.
No. It's called business. I raise the price to a point that enough people are willing to pay it for me to turn the profit that I want, while not raising it so high that I'm worried about getting undercut by a competitor. It stands to reason that if people on one corner are willing to pay a certain price, people on the opposite corner are probably also willing to pay that same price. It also stands to reason that if the market price of gas goes up, then the chances of me being undercut are much lower.
I have a problem with thinking that an employee should make more than he is worth. Let's say your newly graduated engineer is making $40,000 a year, and working 60 hours a week. This says to me that this is what the company views his worth as, and it's also what he views his worth as. If he is worth more than that, he needs to go find somebody that will pay him what he is worth. If nobody exists that will pay him what he is worth, then I guess he's wrong about his worth (seeing as the purest definition of worth is what somebody else is willing to pay).
An employment agreement to be paid $40,000 a year to "get the job done" is very different from an employment agreement to work as much as required at $19.23/hr for as many hours as needed. You know the compensation when you agree to do the work. The amount you're willing to work in order to keep receiving that $40,000/yr shows just how much that money is worth to you
Its no longer possible for a skilled factory worker to live a middle class lifestyle....
someone will always have to do the menial jobs and they should be able to earn a livable wage working those jobs
"earn a livable wage" and "middle class lifestyle" are not equal. Are these factory workers able to feed themselves, clothe themselves, and put a roof over their heads? If so, then they're earning a livable wage. Amazingly enough, as another poster pointed out, I'd be willing to bet that they're making exactly the amount of money that people in the area are willing to do factory work for.
firing because "refused to work except when paid to do so."
This could be reworded to "Would not work what we requested for the compensation we offered to provide."
I don't see any reason why a company should be required to give you money when you refuse to do what they ask you to do. See, the job consists of money (and benefits) in exchange for services. Unless both sides agree on what the services and compensation are, the only logical course of action is for the relationship to cease. The very notion that the government can require me to continue giving you money when you aren't providing me something that I consider equally valuable is an affront to liberty.
Exactly. The whole point behind these suits is that the workers feel the should be party to government wage fixing laws. A true libertarian feels that those wage fixing laws shouldn't exist in the first place, and were that the case, this recent piece of legislation would be completely irrelevant (nevermind that it wouldn't make sense).
I apologize. I should have said "I am working at the company in order to benefit myself" instead. I fully agree with you that having happy employees means that you get better work out of them. That's part of the cost. And a pleasant work environment is one of the benefits I receive from my employment.
I'd also like to point out that my statement "I think you're both full of crap" was directed towards the posters who stated:
If you're are just there for yourself and don't care about the success of the company you work for, you shouldn't be working there.
and
The company exists for the people, not the other way around. If the company is only there for itself and doesn't care about the success of its employees then it shouldn't exist.
The company only cares about it's employees welfare in so far as it affects their cost/benefit ratio. The employee only cares about the company's welfare in so far as it affects their cost/benefit ratio. (Note cost/benefit does not always have to refer to money, although in the case of the company, it usually does.)
By checking my email once or twice in the evening, I avoid having to ignore my phone ringing. To make up for it, when I need (or want) to get something personal done during work time I do it. I'm happy with the arrangement and management is happy with the arrangement.
Scrap technical and change it to something like "creative" or "problem solving" - there are plenty of people who do "technical work" who basically are cogs in a machine (from an employer's point of view).
I think you're both full of crap. The company exists to make money for its owners. I am working at the company in order to make money for myself.
We both gain from a mutually beneficial arrangement that we call "employment". If the company no longer feels that I am worth what I cost, they let me go. If I no longer feel that I am paid what I am worth, I leave.
Because its added complexity that will add to the price and probably reduce the reliability.
You could say this about any technological innovation. Add to the price, sure. An additional feature will, in general, increase the price. If it's a feature that I want, then I'm willing to pay the increased price. As for reliability, that depends on how it's done. There's no inherent reason that is HAS to be unreliable - it's just that chances are, it will start that way. Then it will improve. I still say "Why not?"
It seems that your whole argument is based on "there's no need for innovation in area A because I think area B is more important." Companies will only "waste" R&D on "crap" that they think will appeal to a large enough market segment to turn a profit. If they're right, there's no waste. Also, if people WANT energy efficient fridges (which it appears people are becoming more interested in) then it stands to reason that fridge companies will take note of this, and invest appropriate R&D into that feature as well.
Your needs and preferences are not everybody's needs and preferences - let others decide what they want (and are willing to spend their money on).
Let the market do what it does best - there's no need to stifle any one area of innovation.
Seriously. This whole "X doesn't NEED to be on the internet" is a ridiculous argument. It's simply saying "oh, having a PC and computer type equipment on the internet should be enough for anybody". The whole point of this internet thing is innovation. Sure, a fridge doesn't NEED to be on the internet. Unless I want it to have some functionality that requires internet connectivity. Same with my computer. It functions just fine, and doesn't NEED to be on the internet.
And why is "fridge can reorder beer for you" drivel? Is there some reason that a fridge SHOULDN'T reorder your beer? Sure, it's not a vital function, but neither most of the stuff that our technology does. Again, this is what innovation and technology is all about - improving the standard of living, making this easier, etc.
Nobody said that this was their entire curriculum. (At least, not that I saw). It appears to be a single research paper.
While I'm not all that versed in MBA curriculum, I personally would consider it a failure in my education if potentially successful business models using open source were not taught - especially if my goal is to work in the software industry.
Don't software authors have a right to get paid... just like any other profession?
Yep, they sure do. I am one. And I get paid. And I only write open source software.
I provide a service, and that is to make their systems work the way they want them to. Most code is either too specific to the business to provide a competitive edge to somebody else, or its so generic that exposing it to the world can only help improve it.
So the EULA for Firefox really ought to say, "You can use Firefox for whatever you want, but if you want to distribute it, please comply with the GPL. Oh, and don't use the trademark 'Firefox' for any other browser. Otherwise, have a nice day!"
But these things are all already covered by applicable law.
I can't distribute copyrighted work without a license and I can't use somebody else's trademark without permission. So, there is no need for any sort of "user agreement".
I find the same thing, but on a more specific level. I get popups that I can easily ignore when I get new messages. If it's from my manager, and the subject starts with "Re:" and it isn't a message that I've sent, I tend to ignore it for hours. This is precisely because my manager sends lots of inane emails in response (usually copying multiple departments thanking someone for completely some simple task).
However, if I get an email from one of the other developers on the team, I read it as soon as I have a break in my train of thought. If one of them took the time to stop and send an email, it's probably important. Also, if I don't check it in 10-20 minutes, I'll probably get a follow up phone call - I'd like to avoid those.
I think the trick is to get notified of new mail, and be able to simply ignore that notification until you are done with your train of thought, then look at the notification and decide if the email warrants pausing your current task.
- on a side note, even though it's usually useless, I do tend to read emails originating from my manager fairly quickly, as they often require me to send a response putting a quick stop to a bad idea
He could have just as easily started typing in email address at myspace, pulling pictures of men when he got a hit, and then posting malicious lies when he got a picture. He could have been doing both.
And, had he done this, you would have a case for libel. Given that the lawsuit is for copyright infringement, rather than libel, I would say it's a pretty safe bet that the man did exactly what Fortuny said he did.
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine...somebody providing some sort of sane response to this. I wanted to say the same thing...just didn't imagine anyone would listen.
Or, as a convenient alternative, I could write a bit of software that can automatically detect some instances in which I wouldn't want to be disturbed, and it can switch the phone to silent or vibrate on its own. Seems convenient.
Or, for less effort, I could buy the same software that someone else wrote...
If I had mod points, you'd get them. This whole "it's not my fault" thing is getting old.
Many people can claim ignorance as to the specifics of their mortgage, and claim that they didn't know how it worked. However, the old "too good to be true" maxim is incredibly applicable in this housing case. Bad credit, Low interest, no money down ?? How does this representation (sadly enough, common in many areas these days) sound like a good idea? Does it make sense that if you have bad credit, and no money to put down, that you should be able to afford an expensive house? Are there not red flags going off in your head when you enter into one of these deals? "What's the catch?" "Am I going to be able to afford this for the next 30 years?" Seriously...take a little bit of personal responsibility for your own greed and mismanagement of your money.
This seems to be about GPU price fixing. The price of the GPU invariably affects the price that the other manufacturers can sell their cards for.
No. It's called business. I raise the price to a point that enough people are willing to pay it for me to turn the profit that I want, while not raising it so high that I'm worried about getting undercut by a competitor. It stands to reason that if people on one corner are willing to pay a certain price, people on the opposite corner are probably also willing to pay that same price. It also stands to reason that if the market price of gas goes up, then the chances of me being undercut are much lower.
I have a problem with thinking that an employee should make more than he is worth. Let's say your newly graduated engineer is making $40,000 a year, and working 60 hours a week. This says to me that this is what the company views his worth as, and it's also what he views his worth as. If he is worth more than that, he needs to go find somebody that will pay him what he is worth. If nobody exists that will pay him what he is worth, then I guess he's wrong about his worth (seeing as the purest definition of worth is what somebody else is willing to pay).
An employment agreement to be paid $40,000 a year to "get the job done" is very different from an employment agreement to work as much as required at $19.23/hr for as many hours as needed. You know the compensation when you agree to do the work. The amount you're willing to work in order to keep receiving that $40,000/yr shows just how much that money is worth to you
Its no longer possible for a skilled factory worker to live a middle class lifestyle....
someone will always have to do the menial jobs and they should be able to earn a livable wage working those jobs
"earn a livable wage" and "middle class lifestyle" are not equal. Are these factory workers able to feed themselves, clothe themselves, and put a roof over their heads? If so, then they're earning a livable wage. Amazingly enough, as another poster pointed out, I'd be willing to bet that they're making exactly the amount of money that people in the area are willing to do factory work for.
firing because "refused to work except when paid to do so."
This could be reworded to "Would not work what we requested for the compensation we offered to provide."
I don't see any reason why a company should be required to give you money when you refuse to do what they ask you to do. See, the job consists of money (and benefits) in exchange for services. Unless both sides agree on what the services and compensation are, the only logical course of action is for the relationship to cease. The very notion that the government can require me to continue giving you money when you aren't providing me something that I consider equally valuable is an affront to liberty.
Exactly. The whole point behind these suits is that the workers feel the should be party to government wage fixing laws. A true libertarian feels that those wage fixing laws shouldn't exist in the first place, and were that the case, this recent piece of legislation would be completely irrelevant (nevermind that it wouldn't make sense).
I apologize. I should have said "I am working at the company in order to benefit myself" instead. I fully agree with you that having happy employees means that you get better work out of them. That's part of the cost. And a pleasant work environment is one of the benefits I receive from my employment.
I'd also like to point out that my statement "I think you're both full of crap" was directed towards the posters who stated:
If you're are just there for yourself and don't care about the success of the company you work for, you shouldn't be working there.
and
The company exists for the people, not the other way around. If the company is only there for itself and doesn't care about the success of its employees then it shouldn't exist.
The company only cares about it's employees welfare in so far as it affects their cost/benefit ratio. The employee only cares about the company's welfare in so far as it affects their cost/benefit ratio. (Note cost/benefit does not always have to refer to money, although in the case of the company, it usually does.)
By checking my email once or twice in the evening, I avoid having to ignore my phone ringing. To make up for it, when I need (or want) to get something personal done during work time I do it. I'm happy with the arrangement and management is happy with the arrangement.
at least not in technical work.
Scrap technical and change it to something like "creative" or "problem solving" - there are plenty of people who do "technical work" who basically are cogs in a machine (from an employer's point of view).
I think you're both full of crap. The company exists to make money for its owners. I am working at the company in order to make money for myself.
We both gain from a mutually beneficial arrangement that we call "employment". If the company no longer feels that I am worth what I cost, they let me go. If I no longer feel that I am paid what I am worth, I leave.
Because its added complexity that will add to the price and probably reduce the reliability.
You could say this about any technological innovation. Add to the price, sure. An additional feature will, in general, increase the price. If it's a feature that I want, then I'm willing to pay the increased price. As for reliability, that depends on how it's done. There's no inherent reason that is HAS to be unreliable - it's just that chances are, it will start that way. Then it will improve. I still say "Why not?"
It seems that your whole argument is based on "there's no need for innovation in area A because I think area B is more important." Companies will only "waste" R&D on "crap" that they think will appeal to a large enough market segment to turn a profit. If they're right, there's no waste. Also, if people WANT energy efficient fridges (which it appears people are becoming more interested in) then it stands to reason that fridge companies will take note of this, and invest appropriate R&D into that feature as well.
Your needs and preferences are not everybody's needs and preferences - let others decide what they want (and are willing to spend their money on). Let the market do what it does best - there's no need to stifle any one area of innovation.
I'll answer your question with another:
Why not?
Seriously. This whole "X doesn't NEED to be on the internet" is a ridiculous argument. It's simply saying "oh, having a PC and computer type equipment on the internet should be enough for anybody". The whole point of this internet thing is innovation. Sure, a fridge doesn't NEED to be on the internet. Unless I want it to have some functionality that requires internet connectivity. Same with my computer. It functions just fine, and doesn't NEED to be on the internet.
And why is "fridge can reorder beer for you" drivel? Is there some reason that a fridge SHOULDN'T reorder your beer? Sure, it's not a vital function, but neither most of the stuff that our technology does. Again, this is what innovation and technology is all about - improving the standard of living, making this easier, etc.
Nobody said that this was their entire curriculum. (At least, not that I saw). It appears to be a single research paper.
While I'm not all that versed in MBA curriculum, I personally would consider it a failure in my education if potentially successful business models using open source were not taught - especially if my goal is to work in the software industry.
Don't software authors have a right to get paid... just like any other profession?
Yep, they sure do. I am one. And I get paid. And I only write open source software.
I provide a service, and that is to make their systems work the way they want them to. Most code is either too specific to the business to provide a competitive edge to somebody else, or its so generic that exposing it to the world can only help improve it.
Try disabling javascript - works like a charm for me.
So the EULA for Firefox really ought to say, "You can use Firefox for whatever you want, but if you want to distribute it, please comply with the GPL. Oh, and don't use the trademark 'Firefox' for any other browser. Otherwise, have a nice day!"
But these things are all already covered by applicable law.
I can't distribute copyrighted work without a license and I can't use somebody else's trademark without permission. So, there is no need for any sort of "user agreement".
I find the same thing, but on a more specific level. I get popups that I can easily ignore when I get new messages. If it's from my manager, and the subject starts with "Re:" and it isn't a message that I've sent, I tend to ignore it for hours. This is precisely because my manager sends lots of inane emails in response (usually copying multiple departments thanking someone for completely some simple task).
However, if I get an email from one of the other developers on the team, I read it as soon as I have a break in my train of thought. If one of them took the time to stop and send an email, it's probably important. Also, if I don't check it in 10-20 minutes, I'll probably get a follow up phone call - I'd like to avoid those.
I think the trick is to get notified of new mail, and be able to simply ignore that notification until you are done with your train of thought, then look at the notification and decide if the email warrants pausing your current task.
- on a side note, even though it's usually useless, I do tend to read emails originating from my manager fairly quickly, as they often require me to send a response putting a quick stop to a bad idea
relevant...
With synergy.
And if Fortuny lied, why isn't this man suing him for libel, rather than copyright infringement?
He could have just as easily started typing in email address at myspace, pulling pictures of men when he got a hit, and then posting malicious lies when he got a picture. He could have been doing both.
And, had he done this, you would have a case for libel. Given that the lawsuit is for copyright infringement, rather than libel, I would say it's a pretty safe bet that the man did exactly what Fortuny said he did.
We are currently working on this cold issue. However, some have termed this effort "Global Warming" and have decided that it is a bad thing.