When the party unity takes presedence over everything else, we're in trouble. Because that means that we don't have 500+ people (in the entire congress) making decisions, we have a handful.
We have 300 million people making decisions. They're called the electorate.
Do you feel that is right and/or in the spirit of the constitution?
That the people vote for the legislators that they want? Yes, on both counts.
Hoplophobic - yeah, definitely. I think it's a healthy fear... fearing things that are designed to kill you is probably among the healthiest of fears.
By definition, a phobia isn't just a fear, it's an irrational one. Most people who are afflicted with phobias feel that they're normal and healthy things to fear.
You'll be spending it on fine European furniture, or nice foreign cars, yachts... foreign luxury items, because that's where the prestige lies.
Rich people stopped buying yachts en masse a decade ago. When the taxes on them were raised, they stopped buying them, or at least under the US banner.
If there were surpluses, I'd say certainly, let's have them back. But right now, instead of a bit of spending discipline, we have the gov't borrowing money in our name, spending it on shit we don't need, and then telling us we'll have to repay it with interest later.
There are two ways to eliminate the deficit. 1. Raise revenue, 2. Lower Spending. There is a limit to how much additional revenue we can acquire without killing the economy. The biggest single expense in our budget is social security. How much of a chance does any politician who says that s/he will cut that have of getting elected?
If there is no party unity, if people are allowed to disagree with the party platform and still get the support of the party, then the platform is meaningless. Instead of a political party with an agenda, it becomes a social club.
John McCain is the best example of this. He is a party dissenter, and in his own state that's wonderful for him. AZ is a state that wants a more liberal Republican. He had no chance of getting the support of the rest of the party. He would have wooed the votes of some democrats, but he would have lost the votes of even more republicans. Had he won the party nomination in 2000, the republican base would have stayed at home on election day. The pary leadership knew this and put their support behind GWB. Bush was the best chance to win.
Without party unity, there is no party.
My point was also that their agenda is stupid and irrelevant.
It's a free country and you're entitled to whatever opinions you wish. But so are we. Our issues are important to us. We don't care if you are not concerned with them.
Hoplophobic is a more generalize term, it is about a fear of "weapons", not just guns.
If there's a time for leadership, this is it. Yet all we're hearing from the current "leadership" is how and where to cut taxes.
Cutting taxes works on the same principle that having a sale does. Lower prices results in more volume and thereby greater revenue. It worked for Kennedy in the 60s and again for Reagan in the 80s.
The big problem is that we need to match spending cuts with tax cuts to get maximum effect and no one is willing to give up their pet project.
If you read my original post in this thread, you know that I'm opposed to the law. I am also opposed to the activity, I believe that hunters should oppose this outfit and drive them out of business via a boycott.
What do you mean nobody wants cougars or wolves near their towns? There are a lot of us willing to allow larger predators back where they belong. We may or may not be a minority, but I know we are a far cry from "No one"
He's saying that anyone who holds such idiotic ideals is a "nobody".
As you say biodiversity has been harmed by largely unrestrained deer populations in some areas, but increasing hunting allowances is not the only answer.
It's not the "only" answer, but it's the best answer.
The difference is that hunting is a competition between an animal's senses and instinct against a human's intellect and discipline. Animals can smell and hear us long before we can see them. A servo mounted rifle removes the only advantage that the animals have. It's not sporting.
If they love doing it as much as you do, but are unable to, why would you want to take that away from them?
Because it's not hunting. It's just killing.
I'm against hunting, as I think all lives are equal, and killing for personal enjoyment is wrong, but I don't understand you argument here.
This statement explains why you don't understand it.
What's the difference between killing in a cold wet forest or in the comfort of you own home?
Sport.
How much fun is it to beat a comatose person at chess? If there's no competition, there is no sport.
My personal advice is to make it known that you will honor your word to work out your remaining time and give 100% while you are there, but if it's outside of your job description to find and train your own replacement don't.
I don't advise that you do this, but personally, I prefer to make legal threats, but vaguely. It's a subtle thing, you want to make a threat to take legal action that the boss will later wonder if you meant you'd kick his ass.
After he sweats it out for a night or two, let him raise the issue again, let the veil drop. Let it be known that you were talking about legal channels.
Because you can probably get a decent notebook/tablet pc for less the cost of the equipment to print an 800-page book cheaply, and that way, the text is searchable -- no more thumbing through indexes.
Unless you have a source for equipment that has recently "fallen off of the back of a truck" it's going to be cheaper to go to Kinkos.
Google IS my browsers' home page. It IS locked. And in a few days if someone googles for a bare bones motherboard, THIS discussion will be among the results.
Take the budget deficit, for example (oops, I think I picked an unfortunate example.)
No. You picked a perfect example of politics for politics' sake. Deficit spending is an unfortunate reality in today's America. The opposition party always uses it for their own purposes. The Republicans made a lot of noise about the "Balanced Budget Amendment" when Clinton was in office. It never had a chance of going anywhere. Now that Bush is running the show, the Dems are making a lot of noise about the deficit. They won't do anything about it either.
I expect that would cross the line of States Rights. Perhaps they could enforce it for interstate transportation, but within my state I think there would be a fight against such a thing.
They'll probably do it the same way they enforced the 55MPH speed limit or the way they enforce the 21 drinking age. Tie federal highway funds to compliance. It's perfectly constitutional. States can opt out, but if they do, they'll lose millions of dollars in state highway funds. As much as the states wish otherwise they can't maintain the thousands of miles of interstate highways inside of them without the federal money.
They get candidates elected. They get their agenda addressed.
Renewing such legislation as the estate tax, or the assault weapons ban?
Reversal of the Clinton Gun Ban is one of the reasons why they are in Congress(and the Whitehouse). Instead of taking the risk of bringing it up for a vote, they let the sunset provision take effect. That provision is the only reason that it got enough votes to pass 11 years ago.
Getting Bin Laden?
We could have had him 6 years ago. Need I remind you of who wasn't interested?
I won't even go near the Jesus, Guns and bigotry part. You can guess where I stand on that.
At some point congress needs to step up and take it's authority back from both the executive AND judicial branches. I could rant on, but I've probably bored you to death already.
How? In order to force through a law you need a 2/3 majority. No matter how future elections swing, no Senator or Representative is going to commit career suicide by hamstringing his party.
Lets look at the two situtions where it's most likely to even make it to the floor for a vote.
One, Democrat president with a Republican Congress.
The Republicans would get HAMMERED by the media for attempting such a power grab. The resultant blitz would cause they to get swept out of office in the next election.
Two, Republican President with a Democrat Congress.
The Democrats would never strip the Executive branch of any power, because that's how they force through so many policy changes.
Jesus, Guns, and Bigotry. All staples of an ignorant society.
Jesus, Guns and what some call bigotry and the people who hold those values are what kept the Whitehouse, as well as Congress in Republican hands.
The same people dominate most State Legislatures. Make fun all you like, but these people that you ridicule ARE the mainstream. They ARE the people who get things done in government.
Fortunately my employment with this particular company didn't work out for other reasons. (namely that they wanted hourly employees who would work 50 hours per week while only being paid for 40 of them.
That was the only employer who ever presented me with a non-compete.
Of course, next you'll probably tell me that employers can't refuse to hire you based on your behaviour with previous employers.
Sort of. A new employer can refuse to hire someone for any (legal) reason or no reason at all. But, if a previous employer discloses too much information about you, and you don't get the job as a result. You are free to sue them.
In my state, a previous employer is very restricted in what they are able to tell new prospective employees about you.
Shall I bury you in sites again to prove my point?
So if you go to court and say what you suggest you say the judge will ask you "did you tell your employer that you agreed to the contract" to which you may reply that you clearly wrote "Wont Agree" on the signature line and the judge would tell you that unless you actually said you won't sign it then you did just sign it.
Actually what I said was "Here you go." when I handed the piece of paper that I wrote "Won't Agree" on. I rejected the terms of that agreement. They chose to hire me anyway.
Of course, you could then lie to the judge and get your ass thrown in prison on a completely different charge.
No need to lie. I never claimed to have agreed. They may have assumed or inferred that I did, but their misunderstanding is not my fault.
You can require someone who wants to be your employee to sign a document stating just about anything (short of forefiting their life or other such) and if they agree to it then they are bound by it.
Depends on where you live. Where I live, employers are limited in what restrictions they can impose on former employees.
If they decide to violate that agreement they will have to pay any damages that are incurred to their previous employer.
In most cases the damage incurred would be $0.00. One does not financially injur a former employer by finding new employment.
So even if you sign a document that says you can't work in the same industry for 6 months after your termination you're still free to do so, you'll just have to pay any damages that are incurred to your previous employer as a result of violating your contract.
Once again, unless the person is disclosing trade secrets or taking clients, there is no damage to the previous employer.
Non-competes have to be reasonable to be enforceable. Reasonableness is determined by the courts based on the specific facts in each case. Primary attention is given by the courts to:
the geographic scope of the non-compete, the duration of the non-compete, and the type of activity the ex-employee is precluded from engaging in.
In determining whether a non-competition agreement is valid, courts assess the following questions:
1. Does the agreement protect a legitimate interest of the employer?
2. Is the agreement too restrictive in terms of its duration? Is the agreement limited to the amount of time necessary to reasonably protect the employer?
3. Is the agreement too restrictive in terms of the geographic boundaries specified? Is the agreement limited to the geographic areas necessary to reasonably protect the employer?
4. Is the agreement supported by good consideration? In other words, was the agreement entered into upon the initial employment of the employee or upon advancement of the employee with the employer?
Catch the term "Reasonably"? It's there on purpose.
Instead of the opinions of third parties, let's see what the courts have said about it.
[T]he one-year duration of EarthWeb's restrictive covenant is too long given the dynamic nature of this industry, its lack of geographic borders, and Schlack's former cutting-edge position with EarthWeb where his success depended on keeping abreast of daily changes in content on the Internet.
In Keener v. Convergys(Google for it, I'm tired of linking pages that you probably won't read anyway) the court threw out a non-compete for being too restrictive.
A non-compete must be REASONABLE for a court to enforce it. The definition of that word may be subject to the interpretatio
I have been presented with a non-compete before. I did not sign it however. My first name begins with a "W", so does the word "Won't" so I write "Won't Agree" on any document that I feel I have been coerced into signing. If it ever comes back upon me, I can keep a straight face before a judge and say "I did not sign that document. I clearly wrote 'Won't Agree' on the signature line."
To be fair, I don't know anything about aussie employment law, but here in the US, a non-compete agreement must be "reasonable" to be enforced. You can't make an employee agree to not work in the field at all for a period of time after their employment with you ends. That would be tantamount to slavery. Either keep working for me or starve for a year.
You can however get an employee to agree to not work for a client for 12 months after they leave your company. You can get an employee to agree not to go to the outfit across the street when they leave.
Again, operating under the law with which I'm familiar, no such agreement is likely to be upheld.
Any job you get as a programmer will have a clause in the contract that states that you can't work on a competing product (open source or not) for a given number of months/years after leaving the company.
You may not be able to disclose any propriatary information that you have, but how can a non-compete agreement apply to volunteer work?
Slashdot Mirror
Better that than a hot bowl of grits and some whale sperm.
LK
When the party unity takes presedence over everything else, we're in trouble. Because that means that we don't have 500+ people (in the entire congress) making decisions, we have a handful.
We have 300 million people making decisions. They're called the electorate.
Do you feel that is right and/or in the spirit of the constitution?
That the people vote for the legislators that they want? Yes, on both counts.
Hoplophobic - yeah, definitely. I think it's a healthy fear... fearing things that are designed to kill you is probably among the healthiest of fears.
By definition, a phobia isn't just a fear, it's an irrational one. Most people who are afflicted with phobias feel that they're normal and healthy things to fear.
You'll be spending it on fine European furniture, or nice foreign cars, yachts... foreign luxury items, because that's where the prestige lies.
Rich people stopped buying yachts en masse a decade ago. When the taxes on them were raised, they stopped buying them, or at least under the US banner.
If there were surpluses, I'd say certainly, let's have them back. But right now, instead of a bit of spending discipline, we have the gov't borrowing money in our name, spending it on shit we don't need, and then telling us we'll have to repay it with interest later.
There are two ways to eliminate the deficit. 1. Raise revenue, 2. Lower Spending. There is a limit to how much additional revenue we can acquire without killing the economy. The biggest single expense in our budget is social security. How much of a chance does any politician who says that s/he will cut that have of getting elected?
LK
If there is no party unity, if people are allowed to disagree with the party platform and still get the support of the party, then the platform is meaningless. Instead of a political party with an agenda, it becomes a social club.
John McCain is the best example of this. He is a party dissenter, and in his own state that's wonderful for him. AZ is a state that wants a more liberal Republican. He had no chance of getting the support of the rest of the party. He would have wooed the votes of some democrats, but he would have lost the votes of even more republicans. Had he won the party nomination in 2000, the republican base would have stayed at home on election day. The pary leadership knew this and put their support behind GWB. Bush was the best chance to win.
Without party unity, there is no party.
My point was also that their agenda is stupid and irrelevant.
It's a free country and you're entitled to whatever opinions you wish. But so are we. Our issues are important to us. We don't care if you are not concerned with them.
Hoplophobic is a more generalize term, it is about a fear of "weapons", not just guns.
If there's a time for leadership, this is it. Yet all we're hearing from the current "leadership" is how and where to cut taxes.
Cutting taxes works on the same principle that having a sale does. Lower prices results in more volume and thereby greater revenue. It worked for Kennedy in the 60s and again for Reagan in the 80s.
The big problem is that we need to match spending cuts with tax cuts to get maximum effect and no one is willing to give up their pet project.
LK
If you read my original post in this thread, you know that I'm opposed to the law. I am also opposed to the activity, I believe that hunters should oppose this outfit and drive them out of business via a boycott.
LK
What do you mean nobody wants cougars or wolves near their towns? There are a lot of us willing to allow larger predators back where they belong. We may or may not be a minority, but I know we are a far cry from "No one"
He's saying that anyone who holds such idiotic ideals is a "nobody".
As you say biodiversity has been harmed by largely unrestrained deer populations in some areas, but increasing hunting allowances is not the only answer.
It's not the "only" answer, but it's the best answer.
LK
What's the difference really?
The difference is that hunting is a competition between an animal's senses and instinct against a human's intellect and discipline. Animals can smell and hear us long before we can see them. A servo mounted rifle removes the only advantage that the animals have. It's not sporting.
If they love doing it as much as you do, but are unable to, why would you want to take that away from them?
Because it's not hunting. It's just killing.
I'm against hunting, as I think all lives are equal, and killing for personal enjoyment is wrong, but I don't understand you argument here.
This statement explains why you don't understand it.
What's the difference between killing in a cold wet forest or in the comfort of you own home?
Sport.
How much fun is it to beat a comatose person at chess? If there's no competition, there is no sport.
LK
Hunters consider hunting by robot and mouse click 'a digrace to the sport,' whereas tracking and killing innocent animals on foot is just fine.
Need a band-aid for that bleeding heart? This story has NOTHING to do with news for nerds nor stuff that matters.
I am a hunter. I don't believe that it's sporting to hunt via an internet connection, but I don't like any sort of bans on the sport.
I would prefer that true hunters protest and boycott the place and drive them out of business.
LK
My personal advice is to make it known that you will honor your word to work out your remaining time and give 100% while you are there, but if it's outside of your job description to find and train your own replacement don't.
I don't advise that you do this, but personally, I prefer to make legal threats, but vaguely. It's a subtle thing, you want to make a threat to take legal action that the boss will later wonder if you meant you'd kick his ass.
After he sweats it out for a night or two, let him raise the issue again, let the veil drop. Let it be known that you were talking about legal channels.
LK
Because you can probably get a decent notebook/tablet pc for less the cost of the equipment to print an 800-page book cheaply, and that way, the text is searchable -- no more thumbing through indexes.
Unless you have a source for equipment that has recently "fallen off of the back of a truck" it's going to be cheaper to go to Kinkos.
LK
Google IS my browsers' home page. It IS locked. And in a few days if someone googles for a bare bones motherboard, THIS discussion will be among the results.
LK
Sounds like a 'Soviet Russia' joke.
In Soviet Russia, hot chicks penetrate YOU!
LK
Take the budget deficit, for example (oops, I think I picked an unfortunate example.)
No. You picked a perfect example of politics for politics' sake. Deficit spending is an unfortunate reality in today's America. The opposition party always uses it for their own purposes. The Republicans made a lot of noise about the "Balanced Budget Amendment" when Clinton was in office. It never had a chance of going anywhere. Now that Bush is running the show, the Dems are making a lot of noise about the deficit. They won't do anything about it either.
LK
I'm bisexual, and I hate Microsoft.
If you're a chick, I really want to meet you.
LK
I expect that would cross the line of States Rights. Perhaps they could enforce it for interstate transportation, but within my state I think there would be a fight against such a thing.
They'll probably do it the same way they enforced the 55MPH speed limit or the way they enforce the 21 drinking age. Tie federal highway funds to compliance. It's perfectly constitutional. States can opt out, but if they do, they'll lose millions of dollars in state highway funds. As much as the states wish otherwise they can't maintain the thousands of miles of interstate highways inside of them without the federal money.
LK
They get things done?
They get candidates elected. They get their agenda addressed.
Renewing such legislation as the estate tax, or the assault weapons ban?
Reversal of the Clinton Gun Ban is one of the reasons why they are in Congress(and the Whitehouse). Instead of taking the risk of bringing it up for a vote, they let the sunset provision take effect. That provision is the only reason that it got enough votes to pass 11 years ago.
Getting Bin Laden?
We could have had him 6 years ago. Need I remind you of who wasn't interested?
I won't even go near the Jesus, Guns and bigotry part. You can guess where I stand on that.
You're an agnostic, hoplophobic sodomite?
LK
At some point congress needs to step up and take it's authority back from both the executive AND judicial branches. I could rant on, but I've probably bored you to death already.
How? In order to force through a law you need a 2/3 majority. No matter how future elections swing, no Senator or Representative is going to commit career suicide by hamstringing his party.
Lets look at the two situtions where it's most likely to even make it to the floor for a vote.
One, Democrat president with a Republican Congress.
The Republicans would get HAMMERED by the media for attempting such a power grab. The resultant blitz would cause they to get swept out of office in the next election.
Two, Republican President with a Democrat Congress.
The Democrats would never strip the Executive branch of any power, because that's how they force through so many policy changes.
In short, it just ain't going to happen.
LK
Jesus, Guns, and Bigotry. All staples of an ignorant society.
Jesus, Guns and what some call bigotry and the people who hold those values are what kept the Whitehouse, as well as Congress in Republican hands.
The same people dominate most State Legislatures. Make fun all you like, but these people that you ridicule ARE the mainstream. They ARE the people who get things done in government.
LK
Fortunately my employment with this particular company didn't work out for other reasons. (namely that they wanted hourly employees who would work 50 hours per week while only being paid for 40 of them.
That was the only employer who ever presented me with a non-compete.
Of course, next you'll probably tell me that employers can't refuse to hire you based on your behaviour with previous employers.
Sort of. A new employer can refuse to hire someone for any (legal) reason or no reason at all. But, if a previous employer discloses too much information about you, and you don't get the job as a result. You are free to sue them.
In my state, a previous employer is very restricted in what they are able to tell new prospective employees about you.
Shall I bury you in sites again to prove my point?
LK
Actually what I said was "Here you go." when I handed the piece of paper that I wrote "Won't Agree" on. I rejected the terms of that agreement. They chose to hire me anyway.
Of course, you could then lie to the judge and get your ass thrown in prison on a completely different charge.
No need to lie. I never claimed to have agreed. They may have assumed or inferred that I did, but their misunderstanding is not my fault.
You can require someone who wants to be your employee to sign a document stating just about anything (short of forefiting their life or other such) and if they agree to it then they are bound by it.
Depends on where you live. Where I live, employers are limited in what restrictions they can impose on former employees.
If they decide to violate that agreement they will have to pay any damages that are incurred to their previous employer.
In most cases the damage incurred would be $0.00. One does not financially injur a former employer by finding new employment.
So even if you sign a document that says you can't work in the same industry for 6 months after your termination you're still free to do so, you'll just have to pay any damages that are incurred to your previous employer as a result of violating your contract.
Once again, unless the person is disclosing trade secrets or taking clients, there is no damage to the previous employer.
IANAL, but these guys are.
the geographic scope of the non-compete,
the duration of the non-compete, and
the type of activity the ex-employee is precluded from engaging in.
Here's another example.
1. Does the agreement protect a legitimate interest of the employer?
2. Is the agreement too restrictive in terms of its duration? Is the agreement limited to the amount of time necessary to reasonably protect the employer?
3. Is the agreement too restrictive in terms of the geographic boundaries specified? Is the agreement limited to the geographic areas necessary to reasonably protect the employer?
4. Is the agreement supported by good consideration? In other words, was the agreement entered into upon the initial employment of the employee or upon advancement of the employee with the employer?
Catch the term "Reasonably"? It's there on purpose.
Instead of the opinions of third parties, let's see what the courts have said about it.
Earthweb Inc. v. Schlack
The courts held that...
In Keener v. Convergys(Google for it, I'm tired of linking pages that you probably won't read anyway)
the court threw out a non-compete for being too restrictive.
A non-compete must be REASONABLE for a court to enforce it. The definition of that word may be subject to the interpretatio
I have been presented with a non-compete before. I did not sign it however. My first name begins with a "W", so does the word "Won't" so I write "Won't Agree" on any document that I feel I have been coerced into signing. If it ever comes back upon me, I can keep a straight face before a judge and say "I did not sign that document. I clearly wrote 'Won't Agree' on the signature line."
To be fair, I don't know anything about aussie employment law, but here in the US, a non-compete agreement must be "reasonable" to be enforced. You can't make an employee agree to not work in the field at all for a period of time after their employment with you ends. That would be tantamount to slavery. Either keep working for me or starve for a year.
You can however get an employee to agree to not work for a client for 12 months after they leave your company. You can get an employee to agree not to go to the outfit across the street when they leave.
Again, operating under the law with which I'm familiar, no such agreement is likely to be upheld.
LK
Any job you get as a programmer will have a clause in the contract that states that you can't work on a competing product (open source or not) for a given number of months/years after leaving the company.
You may not be able to disclose any propriatary information that you have, but how can a non-compete agreement apply to volunteer work?
Technically, you are not working for anyone.
LK
Yeah...it wasn't free (as in beer)!
Photoshop hasn't been destroyed by The GIMP, despite the HUGE difference in price. Perhaps price was A concern, but definately not the only one.
LK
I'm expecting Google soda pop and laundry soap next.
It seems that Google is getting its hands into everything these days. Search, Mail, News, Maps, Shopping, Web Accelleration...
When do we get 'Google The Flamethrower'?
LK
If the commercial product was killed off by the competition, then something was wrong with that product.
LK
"You see sir, if you fire me, I'll still get paid to work on a FREE product that will compete with yours."
LK