For one, this would violate the 4th Amendment rights of the people (excepting prisoners and guards, both of whom can be searched at will) whose calls were logged. The previous administration may have used this point as an argument in the plan's favor, but it is not.
Perhaps this is because the first Bush term ended several years before Slashdot was founded. And because the second Bush will probably be considered the worst president in U.S. history.
Oh, but he already has. Once the guy is on the way to the polls, it's too late. The trick is to keep him from going to the polls in the first place. That's what the voter purges, ID requirements, restrictions on felons voting, etc. are for. All in the name of suppressing the turnout ^W^W^W preventing voter fraud, of course.
By "staffing companies", do you mean outside placement firms? If so, I don't see how this strategy can work. It's quite common that the staffing company doesn't get paid until the employee has been there for three months. If you're a hiring manager who needs more than three months to figure out that the guy you phone-interviewed was a ringer and not the same guy you hired, you deserve to get taken. Ditto if you don't have a three-month clause in your contract with the staffing company.
I tried "I'll use your services, then pay if I feel the urge to" approach with a hooker once, and it didn't work out so well. Do you, by chance, have a wife or girlfriend that I can try this approach out on?
Time to put down the bong. A pay-what-you-will system works out in some limited circumstances, but selling games which cost millions to develop isn't going to be one of them.
Question for you - how many times have you downloaded a movie/song/game, then decided that it was worth more to you than the cover price, so you kicked in the cover price plus an extra few bucks to the corporation that created it? Or is your "pays for in proportion to the piece's personal value to them" line just an elaborate rationalization?
Slashdot Mirror
For one, this would violate the 4th Amendment rights of the people (excepting prisoners and guards, both of whom can be searched at will) whose calls were logged. The previous administration may have used this point as an argument in the plan's favor, but it is not.
Well, yes, absent a source of income (i.e., a job), it is difficult to survive. Your point is?
Whoa there, partner. In California, you are correct. In other states, your mileage may vary.
Get a P.O. box. They're not expensive, and a are a lot more secure.
Dude, cite your source (Stephen Colbert, in case you've forgotten).
Not running when you know you're going to lose isn't honorable; it's only being realistic.
Perhaps this is because the first Bush term ended several years before Slashdot was founded. And because the second Bush will probably be considered the worst president in U.S. history.
Oh, but he already has. Once the guy is on the way to the polls, it's too late. The trick is to keep him from going to the polls in the first place. That's what the voter purges, ID requirements, restrictions on felons voting, etc. are for. All in the name of suppressing the turnout ^W^W^W preventing voter fraud, of course.
By "staffing companies", do you mean outside placement firms? If so, I don't see how this strategy can work. It's quite common that the staffing company doesn't get paid until the employee has been there for three months. If you're a hiring manager who needs more than three months to figure out that the guy you phone-interviewed was a ringer and not the same guy you hired, you deserve to get taken. Ditto if you don't have a three-month clause in your contract with the staffing company.
I tried "I'll use your services, then pay if I feel the urge to" approach with a hooker once, and it didn't work out so well. Do you, by chance, have a wife or girlfriend that I can try this approach out on?
Time to put down the bong. A pay-what-you-will system works out in some limited circumstances, but selling games which cost millions to develop isn't going to be one of them.
Question for you - how many times have you downloaded a movie/song/game, then decided that it was worth more to you than the cover price, so you kicked in the cover price plus an extra few bucks to the corporation that created it? Or is your "pays for in proportion to the piece's personal value to them" line just an elaborate rationalization?