The question I want to ask: You signed those papers, you knew what you were doing. Why back out now? There's this thing called work ethic.
Why is it not ethical for an employee want to keep the rights to something they created and did not get paid by the company for? (Unless they're giving you some kind of bonus for something you create, or you are specifically in a think-tank sort of job, you're NOT getting paid for inventing something for them!)
It's one thing if you create something as a direct result of your assigned work (i.e., you're building their mousetrap, and figure out how to improve it), but when it's wholly unrelated (perpetual motion), why should they have any claim over it? When it's related (hey, this mousetrap can be modified to catch kittens instead), there should be a process where you bring it to management and they either (a) pay you a bonus for the idea, (b) give you co-ownership of it, (c) devote some of your work hours to the project, or (d) drop all claims so long as you don't devote company resources to it (time/equipment).
If you think software seriously outlasts cars, especially in the video game market, you're crazy.
My current vehicle is 16 years old. It cost about 10% of what a new vehicle would, but gives me 90% of the value of a new car. (I have slightly lower gas mileage, and the sound system isn't as good, but the real point is to get from point A to point B.) Used vehicles may require more maintenance, but in my experience it's not that much more than a new car's (and parts often cost less since they're more readily available used/3rd party). Let's estimate it at about 10% the cost of a new vehicle over the lifespan of my ownership.
Now, let's look at a 16 year old video game... unless it's crazy-good, or has a high level of nostalgia, I can't imagine getting 20% of the enjoyment out of it I get out of a new game, let alone the 90% of a used car. Bad graphics, bad controls, and a lack of features available on newer titles all add up to make older games considerably worse entertainment than current titles.
If I buy a used game, it's typically because (a) it's an old game I used to like, and wanted to play it again, or (b) it's an earlier game in an ongoing series that I've heard is good. In the case of (b), this has typically ended up with game companies getting more money from me; in the last year I have bought and played through the Assassin's Creed series (borrowed/bought used 1 & 2, and bought the next two games new), and about a month ago I finally played Mass Effect 1 (bought used) - which is going to get them a ME2 sale in the next few weeks, and probably a purchase of ME3 at launch. (Note: In the case of Mass Effect, I actually couldn't find a new copy for purchase - ME1's used price is nearly as high as most older games sell for new).
we got a form from the state government telling us we needed to get our marriage "solemnized" by a priest or judge. Why was priest even an option?
You're asking the wrong question; why did it need to be "solemnized" in the first place? If you both fill out the paperwork, that should be that.
The answer to your question, however, is protection and expediency. Protection, because the priest or judge is supposed to look for a reason to deny the marriage. Expediency, as so many people get church weddings that having the priest be allowed to sign the form is easier on the state.
Yes, I can see how having the date change in the middle of business hours makes everything so much simpler.
As someone who works at a job where we often close after midnight; so what? The only problem the date change ever causes for us is that some software vendors (I'm looking at you Intuit) don't take the possibility into account. If this change happened, they'd have to have their software take date changing workdays into account and it'd become a complete non-issue.
The site is talking about dropping timezones and adopting Universal Time everywhere. (Claiming only people in the middle of the Pacific would be particularly troubled by this)
Wow.
Generally speaking, he'd be correct. There'd be a short period of mental adjustment (such as working an 11-to-7 or 3-to-12 instead of a 9-to-5), but for the most part you'd quickly figure out when to be asleep and when to be awake.
Even if you start work on one date and finish on the next, it's not really a big deal - there's already plenty of people who do that. (Any job that closes after midnight does this all the time.)
Just because I disagree with a law doesn't mean I should use nullification to disrupt the legal process
Jury nullification is part of the legal process. In fact, it's arguably the only reason juries exist in the first place.
If all you're trying to establish is if a law was broken, a judge or tribunal can do that. The entire point of a jury is to ensure that a law is not unfair or being used unfairly.
Users were advised to pick the computer up a few inches off the ground and then drop it, hopefully jostling the chips back into position.
Strangely enough, I ran into this, too - but not on Macs. I was working at a tech support company in 2000 that provided support for Gateway computers. They had acquired a whole batch of defective hard drives at a cut-rate price, and sent thousands of them out to consumers. Apparently the drives had a manufacturing defect where one of the parts in the motor was just slightly out of spec, and would cause the motor to get stuck (and thus, the system to freeze up). The actual, honest-to-god solution in the case of hard drive failure was, "pick up your computer, hold it three inches off the table, then drop it. Now try turn it back on."
We used to refer to these computers as having "the new bump-'n-play hard drives".
I live in North Dakota, we've had these LED traffic lights for years, and I cannot remember the last time I saw one totally snowed up. The shields that curve over the top of the traffic lights here do an adequate job of keeping the snow from coating the signals - including during the 3-day blizzard we had last week (I had to drive in it each of those 3 days, so trust me - they worked).
If they're not working in other states, than either their storms are somehow worse than ND's, or they've cheaped out on the snow shields that go over the top of the lights. I know which one I'd put my money on...
Only one country in the world considers that the "proper" reading of the treaty and that's Israel.
[citation needed]
Israel was defined by UN Mandate by its pre-1967 borders.
Considering that this discussion is about Israel in 1948...
Israel may claim that they can annex areas outside pre-1967 borders but that doesn't make it legitimate.
[citation needed]
Your basic argument as I see it is because Israel claims territory outside pre-1967 border the Geneva Conventions no longer applies.
No. My basic argument is that you cannot comprehend what you are reading. Israel has never annexed the areas currently in contention, and as such they do apply to this discussion, so I do not see why you keep bringing them up.
That's ludicrous though because then any invader can take over land, claim it as their own and be exempt from the Geneva Conventions.
Yes, they can. Once the war is over, and if they actually claim it as part of their country, that is exactly what happens. There are other international treaties dealing with civilians, and those are still in effect at that point, however.
Claiming occupied territory as part of your country is not considered acceptable now and has not been considered acceptable for much of the last 50 years.
[Citation needed] Seriously, though, you cannot be paying attention to reality at all if you believe this.
Whether it may have been in the past isn't relevant.
When you can't reference anything besides your own outrage that says otherwise, historical precedent is always relevant.
Treaties are international law.
Only to countries who agree to it. And even then, countries can back out - it's not like there's a World Government that can actually enforce them. Calling treaties "international guidelines" would be closer to reality.
So you can get around Article 49 simply by claiming occupied territory as part of your country? What is the tortured logic you have that makes that acceptable?
Um, legal procedure? Proper reading of the treaty? Any actual understanding of what the treaty was about? A basic grasp of the English language?
The Geneva Conventions were specifically about wars between countries. Internal state matters concerning a country's own citizens are generally not covered - there are separate treaties about that.
As for claiming occupied territory as part of your country, that has generally been considered acceptable by the governments of the world since the beginning of recorded history. However, doing so has both benefits and drawbacks, as annexing the land makes those who live there become citizens of your country.
Regardless, you really need to decide what you're arguing, here. You bring up a "law" (treaties are not actually laws), so I point out what the "law" is actually about and why it doesn't apply. You don't like what the "law" actually says, so you attack me for pointing out the problem with it.
Article 49 refers to occupied territory - i.e., lands that are being held by a country, but not part of the country. The lands in question here are part of the Israeli state, not an occupied territory. Therefore Article 49 does not apply.
Of course if it was an arab killed by israeli border guards it would be front page news around the world.
If the Arab had been in custody and being questioned for two hours, then security just decided to walk him outside and shoot him three times, yes. I imagine it probably would get some attention. Such things have done so in the past, even in active war zones.
Also, this is hardly the fault of the Israelis as a whole - it's like blaming modern Americans for kicking Native American tribes off their lands (or just about any modern country's similar historical treatment of their indigenous populations). The big difference in this case is that some of the original actors are still alive, and thus have a much more valid claim for reclamation of property than those who simply had some ancestor involved.
The there are two major problems with any attempts to return the "stolen" lands/homes to the previous Arab owners:
A large majority of the homes and lands were taken as part of wars, and there is a to-the-beginning-of-recorded-history precedent that lands seized in a war are given to the inhabitants of the country that ends up with those lands.
It has been long enough that many people with no involvement in the original situation have been living in the contested areas and made a life for themselves there. Would it be any less wrong to forcefully expel the current inhabitants than it was to expel the original Arab inhabitants?
Some form of eminent domain action would be the only method even approaching fairness to those involved, but it's doubtful either side would agree to such a solution at this point.
Slashdot Mirror
The question I want to ask: You signed those papers, you knew what you were doing. Why back out now? There's this thing called work ethic.
Why is it not ethical for an employee want to keep the rights to something they created and did not get paid by the company for? (Unless they're giving you some kind of bonus for something you create, or you are specifically in a think-tank sort of job, you're NOT getting paid for inventing something for them!)
It's one thing if you create something as a direct result of your assigned work (i.e., you're building their mousetrap, and figure out how to improve it), but when it's wholly unrelated (perpetual motion), why should they have any claim over it? When it's related (hey, this mousetrap can be modified to catch kittens instead), there should be a process where you bring it to management and they either (a) pay you a bonus for the idea, (b) give you co-ownership of it, (c) devote some of your work hours to the project, or (d) drop all claims so long as you don't devote company resources to it (time/equipment).
Wait a minute! You just described one of MY kids! Maybe copy is the right word - I'm totally suing you for infringement!
So STOP BUYING stuff from them!
But when I stopped buying stuff from them they started trying to put me in jail for piracy...
(after all, I do not copy a lot of physical objects).
My wife and I made two little copies of me.
Actually, I think that those would be considered derivative works.
If you think software seriously outlasts cars, especially in the video game market, you're crazy.
My current vehicle is 16 years old. It cost about 10% of what a new vehicle would, but gives me 90% of the value of a new car. (I have slightly lower gas mileage, and the sound system isn't as good, but the real point is to get from point A to point B.) Used vehicles may require more maintenance, but in my experience it's not that much more than a new car's (and parts often cost less since they're more readily available used/3rd party). Let's estimate it at about 10% the cost of a new vehicle over the lifespan of my ownership.
Now, let's look at a 16 year old video game ... unless it's crazy-good, or has a high level of nostalgia, I can't imagine getting 20% of the enjoyment out of it I get out of a new game, let alone the 90% of a used car. Bad graphics, bad controls, and a lack of features available on newer titles all add up to make older games considerably worse entertainment than current titles.
If I buy a used game, it's typically because (a) it's an old game I used to like, and wanted to play it again, or (b) it's an earlier game in an ongoing series that I've heard is good. In the case of (b), this has typically ended up with game companies getting more money from me; in the last year I have bought and played through the Assassin's Creed series (borrowed/bought used 1 & 2, and bought the next two games new), and about a month ago I finally played Mass Effect 1 (bought used) - which is going to get them a ME2 sale in the next few weeks, and probably a purchase of ME3 at launch. (Note: In the case of Mass Effect, I actually couldn't find a new copy for purchase - ME1's used price is nearly as high as most older games sell for new).
we got a form from the state government telling us we needed to get our marriage "solemnized" by a priest or judge. Why was priest even an option?
You're asking the wrong question; why did it need to be "solemnized" in the first place? If you both fill out the paperwork, that should be that.
The answer to your question, however, is protection and expediency. Protection, because the priest or judge is supposed to look for a reason to deny the marriage. Expediency, as so many people get church weddings that having the priest be allowed to sign the form is easier on the state.
Yes, I can see how having the date change in the middle of business hours makes everything so much simpler.
As someone who works at a job where we often close after midnight; so what?
The only problem the date change ever causes for us is that some software vendors (I'm looking at you Intuit) don't take the possibility into account. If this change happened, they'd have to have their software take date changing workdays into account and it'd become a complete non-issue.
The site is talking about dropping timezones and adopting Universal Time everywhere. (Claiming only people in the middle of the Pacific would be particularly troubled by this)
Wow.
Generally speaking, he'd be correct. There'd be a short period of mental adjustment (such as working an 11-to-7 or 3-to-12 instead of a 9-to-5), but for the most part you'd quickly figure out when to be asleep and when to be awake.
Even if you start work on one date and finish on the next, it's not really a big deal - there's already plenty of people who do that. (Any job that closes after midnight does this all the time.)
Look, just as no one uses the metric system because of the inertia involved
Look, just as no one exists outside the United States inside your mind...
Also, nobody works in science or engineering fields.
You prevent 9/11 but you cause the A-bomb to be dropped on New York, and that's like 9/11 times 1000. Yes, that's 91,100.
Actually, that would be 818 and change.
Just because I disagree with a law doesn't mean I should use nullification to disrupt the legal process
Jury nullification is part of the legal process. In fact, it's arguably the only reason juries exist in the first place.
If all you're trying to establish is if a law was broken, a judge or tribunal can do that. The entire point of a jury is to ensure that a law is not unfair or being used unfairly.
Low UID = better than you?
I'm up for that fight.
Bring it, bitches.
I prefer the "Elite or it didn't happen" version of that old saying; you get 20% more ppi (proof per inch) that way.
Just because this is powered by electricity doesn't make it news for nerds.
No, but it being a high-tech subject with implications for a massive amount of existing and emerging technologies does.
Actually, I'm quoting Kevin Smith, you whippersnapper.
Now get off my lawn!
You're a cigarette.
Users were advised to pick the computer up a few inches off the ground and then drop it, hopefully jostling the chips back into position.
Strangely enough, I ran into this, too - but not on Macs. I was working at a tech support company in 2000 that provided support for Gateway computers. They had acquired a whole batch of defective hard drives at a cut-rate price, and sent thousands of them out to consumers. Apparently the drives had a manufacturing defect where one of the parts in the motor was just slightly out of spec, and would cause the motor to get stuck (and thus, the system to freeze up). The actual, honest-to-god solution in the case of hard drive failure was, "pick up your computer, hold it three inches off the table, then drop it. Now try turn it back on."
We used to refer to these computers as having "the new bump-'n-play hard drives".
I live in North Dakota, we've had these LED traffic lights for years, and I cannot remember the last time I saw one totally snowed up. The shields that curve over the top of the traffic lights here do an adequate job of keeping the snow from coating the signals - including during the 3-day blizzard we had last week (I had to drive in it each of those 3 days, so trust me - they worked).
If they're not working in other states, than either their storms are somehow worse than ND's, or they've cheaped out on the snow shields that go over the top of the lights. I know which one I'd put my money on...
Only one country in the world considers that the "proper" reading of the treaty and that's Israel.
[citation needed]
Israel was defined by UN Mandate by its pre-1967 borders.
Considering that this discussion is about Israel in 1948 ...
Israel may claim that they can annex areas outside pre-1967 borders but that doesn't make it legitimate.
[citation needed]
Your basic argument as I see it is because Israel claims territory outside pre-1967 border the Geneva Conventions no longer applies.
No. My basic argument is that you cannot comprehend what you are reading.
Israel has never annexed the areas currently in contention, and as such they do apply to this discussion, so I do not see why you keep bringing them up.
That's ludicrous though because then any invader can take over land, claim it as their own and be exempt from the Geneva Conventions.
Yes, they can. Once the war is over, and if they actually claim it as part of their country, that is exactly what happens. There are other international treaties dealing with civilians, and those are still in effect at that point, however.
Claiming occupied territory as part of your country is not considered acceptable now and has not been considered acceptable for much of the last 50 years.
[Citation needed]
Seriously, though, you cannot be paying attention to reality at all if you believe this.
Whether it may have been in the past isn't relevant.
When you can't reference anything besides your own outrage that says otherwise, historical precedent is always relevant.
Treaties are international law.
Only to countries who agree to it. And even then, countries can back out - it's not like there's a World Government that can actually enforce them.
Calling treaties "international guidelines" would be closer to reality.
So you can get around Article 49 simply by claiming occupied territory as part of your country? What is the tortured logic you have that makes that acceptable?
Um, legal procedure? Proper reading of the treaty? Any actual understanding of what the treaty was about? A basic grasp of the English language?
The Geneva Conventions were specifically about wars between countries. Internal state matters concerning a country's own citizens are generally not covered - there are separate treaties about that.
As for claiming occupied territory as part of your country, that has generally been considered acceptable by the governments of the world since the beginning of recorded history. However, doing so has both benefits and drawbacks, as annexing the land makes those who live there become citizens of your country.
Regardless, you really need to decide what you're arguing, here. You bring up a "law" (treaties are not actually laws), so I point out what the "law" is actually about and why it doesn't apply. You don't like what the "law" actually says, so you attack me for pointing out the problem with it.
Article 49 refers to occupied territory - i.e., lands that are being held by a country, but not part of the country. The lands in question here are part of the Israeli state, not an occupied territory. Therefore Article 49 does not apply.
You know, all ethnic Jews finish off their blog posts by saying "Insha’allah I will like Israel better tomorrow."
Yeah, learning the language of a country you're going to, and making use of it, is rather suspicious...
She should have tried carrying a Gideon's Bible into Saudi Arabia and seen how long it would be before she could update her blog.
Wow. I didn't know they took the sanctity of their hotel rooms so seriously there.
Of course if it was an arab killed by israeli border guards it would be front page news around the world.
If the Arab had been in custody and being questioned for two hours, then security just decided to walk him outside and shoot him three times, yes. I imagine it probably would get some attention. Such things have done so in the past, even in active war zones.
Israel didn't exist 60 years ago and the Palestinians were forced out of their lands and homes when it was created.
Actually, the creation of Israel didn't force out the Palestinians. It was a side-effect of the Israeli Civil War and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
Also, this is hardly the fault of the Israelis as a whole - it's like blaming modern Americans for kicking Native American tribes off their lands (or just about any modern country's similar historical treatment of their indigenous populations). The big difference in this case is that some of the original actors are still alive, and thus have a much more valid claim for reclamation of property than those who simply had some ancestor involved.
The there are two major problems with any attempts to return the "stolen" lands/homes to the previous Arab owners:
Some form of eminent domain action would be the only method even approaching fairness to those involved, but it's doubtful either side would agree to such a solution at this point.