Let's extend that argument a little bit, shall we?
People who are offended by their supervisors sexually inappropriate behavior in the workplace can always just quit and go find a different employer... they are free to boycott the company... they are *not* free to to use legal recourse to force such clearly immature persons into behaving as they believe they ought to./
Now do you see where it comes from? Still think they are being immature? Or does the fault lie much deeper?
If I signed a contract stating that I was supposed to name my next child "Bob", they could try and sue me for violating that contract as well.... that doesn't mean that I'd actually end up owing them anything. A contract that requires you to do things that a company is not legally allowed to ask you to do is not enforceable. It should go without saying, even though it is usually made explicit in a non-compete contract and is true anyways even if you never sign one, is that you are not allowed to disclose any confidential knowledge or proprietary information to other parties, and in places where such contracts are actually legally enforceable, an actual non-compete can at most only prohibit you from utilizing your former position in the company to harm the company, where it is important to realize that hypothetical harm does not actually amount to harm... the fact that you could face civil damages for doing so is going to generally going to be understood by a judge as incentive for you to not do such a thing, and in absence of any evidence that they may have which suggests that you did (which they would not have if you did not do so), they would not be able to convince a judge that you owed them anything... the fact that you may have lied about the detail in the contract gives them no more legal claim to damages than it would be, again, if they had required you to name your next child after your boss and you didn't.
That said, I'll certainly agree that it's sort of pointless to sign contracts you don't intend to abide by, even if aspects of the contract are not enforceable, because doing so can still potentially damage your credibility, if that is worth anything to you... but in my experience with non-competes, it will never be worth a company's time to ever even go after you just because you might happen to work for a competitor unless you have actually used your former position in that company to harm your previous company in some way (which in many cases, depending upon your former position with the company, you may be able to accomplish with equal efficacy without having any employer afterwards at all, since they cannot generally prohibit you from simply communicating with whomever you like when you are not within the company, unless said communication would also entail a violation of criminal law in some way, which may be entirely theoretically possible, and would not just carry civil penalties anyways, and if such were the case, then it would be equally true even if you had not signed the non-compete at all).
Your old employment contract also contains clauses about you having to report your employment status for the duration of the non-compete.
As far as I know, the only organization that you are obligated to make any kind of regular report of your employment status to is the revenue branch of the regional government. What would the company do if you didn't report in? Hire a private eye to track you down? How likely is it going to be even worth their time to pursue you unless you have actually misappopriated some of their intellectual property, or else otherwise used your former position in the other company to unfairly manipulate circumstances to be measurably disadvantageous to them?
It really seems that the only utility that noncompetes accomplish is to protect trade secrets or confidential information, but such information or property is already protected by civil or sometimes even criminal law, whether you sign such an agreement or not. If, in your new job, you are not disclosing any such trade secrets or confidential information about your previous company, then your previous employer would never have any practical reason to care who you work for beyond the concern that you *MIGHT* do or say something that you really aren't supposed to, but of course if you do that, then they can actually file charges against you... and depending on the cost to the company, you can even go to jail, so it's not in your best interests to disclose such information anyways. Arguing that you *MIGHT* do something to harm them may be grounds for them to file a lawsuit, but ultimately the onus would still be upon them to prove any actual damages to a judge before you would ever owe them anything. As I pointed out above, you have good incentive to *NOT* disclose such secrets or information, so in the absence of any evidence that you ever did such a thing, a judge would probably be inclined to not award any such damages.
.... your former employer you are working for them. Or unless you actually misappropriate some ip from your old company, which is protected by laws that can carry criminal penalty for infringement and not just civil penalties anyways, whether you signed a non-compete or not, how would your old company even know what you were doing after you left?
Point 1 is solved by basing it on their gross yearly income, not their net taxable income. If they hide that, then they are quite blatantly guilty of tax fraud, which carries other penalties.
Point 2 is a non-problem
Point 3 isn't a problem in general because the most frequent infringers are typically wealthy people who feel they can afford to pay the fines if they get caught.
Else, why hire some ex-con when there's 100s battling to get that job?
What about the possibility that the employer just didn't happen to like any of the others that he interviewed? You might get hundreds of applicants, but will probably interview only a dozen or so... what if the one with a criminal record happened to still leave the best overall impression?
They will probably pass a law saying you cannot discriminate against prior convictions or something unless you can demonstrate some need for security that requires it.
How about the fact that knowledge of it might make the employer uncomfortable? Or is the law allowed to dictate which people we are and are not allowed to dislike? At best, all they can do is say that the employer is not allowed to ask about such convictions.
Since such discrimination is illegalCitation? There's plenty of places that won't disciminate for such reasons, even very good and profitable careers... but I can't see how it could ever be actually illegal to discriminate against somebody because of something they have done in the past.
Last time I used panda for what was just supposed to be an online scan, it went and changed a lot of settings on all of my web browsers, causing no small headache to put back to where they were, even after the software had been removed from my computer. That was about 4 years ago. I haven't used Panda since.
These questions will never be answered, I don't think, because the politics that drive wind power are the same as those that drive anthro climate change - "We're right, shut up if you disagree?"
Actually, most of those questions have already been answered.... the answers are simply always conveniently ignored by people who seem to want nothing more than to believe that there should be something to argue about here.
The effect on the surrounding environment of taking all of that energy out of the wind is actually negligible, except right on the surface. Consider that our atmosphere is many miles thick, and virtuallly all of what contributes to our weather is at a much higher altitude than what windfarms actually reach. There may appear to be some local disruption in the wake of a large winddfarm, but this disruption is only near the surface of the planet, and the overall weather patterns remain unaffected to any sort of remotely alarming degree. You will experience much more pronounced effects from living in or near a city that has many tall buildings.
So do skyscrapers and many other man-made objects.
Per installation instance, windfarms are actually very ecologically benign compared to other things that modern civilization seems to think is perfectly acceptable.
As the battery in my current watch, which does everything I really need a watch to do and several things that I don't, but are nice to have, lasts about 5 years, I don't think asking for one full year is out of line. Either battery tech needs to improve, or they need to improve the technology's power consumption.
The point of wearable computing, IMO, is to be something that you can completely forget about... technology that invisibly blends into your existing lifestyle, assisting you when you call upon it, but if you have to take it off and charge it every single night, then that means you have to think about it every day too... which kind of defeats the point.
I would usually wear my watch in bed... and sometimes even wear it in the shower if I haven't remembered to take it off before. Water resistant to some ridiculous depth that would probably only be a concern of mine if I were into scuba diving, I can even go swimming with it on, and it will not be harmed in any way.
The tech just has too far to go, too many hurdles to overcome, for me to even be mildly interested.
They vowed that African-Americans will "never" be allowed to join the campus chapter, and they stayed true to that vow by getting the chapter closed down.
Not that for a second I condone such attittudes, just saying that from a purely literalist standpoint, they certainly weren't lying.
Honestly, if it weren't *THAT* much higher than any of the other feature requests, I might even buy that as plausible.... but when it has more votes than the next six most popularly voted for issues combined??? With that kind of gap, it is almost certain that they are getting more direct requests for that feature than they are for any other feature as well.
I mean it's POSSIBLE that the feature requests forum is entirely orthogonal to any unbiased random sampling of unity users, but there's no particular reason to suppose that were true. Given that their entire comment itself which said that they cared about democracy actually only tied it in with the notion of keeping costs down to increase the number of people that could utilize it, I am inclined to think that the folks at Unity Technologies just don't actually know what the word "democracy" means.
You and several others have been pointing this out to me... so it appears that some things have changed. I will have to check it out in more detail later.
Looks like trying to do any team development, even for a very tiny team of two or three people might still not be possible, however.... it looks like the personal edition might still be a headache for sharing of assets even between just two people.
"Deep in Unity's culture is the principle of Democracy. "
I laughed out loud when I read that.
In the feature requests feedback forum, making the editor available for Linux is vastly more popular than any other feature request for Unity,. beating out the next most popular by about a factor of 4, and Unity Technologies has publicly stated that they have absolutely no plans on ever porting their editor tools to Linux.
If that's the business decision they are comfortable with, that's one thing, but considering that in the article where they are bragging about how they are promoting democracy by tying it in with how the product was being priced, rather than what people have actually said that they want, I'm pretty sure that I can safely conclude the developers at Unity do not have the foggiest idea what the word "democracy" actually means.
If you even want to *make* products that are practical in any kind of general sense, it isn't free. In my experience, the personal edition is quite seriously feature limited from what you get with the professional edition, and isn't really practical for anything beyond introductory hobbyist level experimentation... to become at least familiar with its capabilities. I can't imagine any serious developer not outgrowing the personal edition and being frustrated by what the professional edition can do that the personal edition cannot within their first year of Unity development, if not a whole lot less time than that. And that might be long before you've ever made a dime of profit.
I completely agree that DST should be abolished, but time zones themselves are still useful, since they still (generally) measure the time relative to when the sun comes up locally. If I run a nation-wide call center that services calls from all over the country, and routes each call to a local answering center, I can say that my hours are 9 am to 5 pm local time. and regardless of where someone is intending to call from, they will know what the local time is, and therefore know whether or not anyone will answer the phone or if their call will be directed to a recording that informs them of the business hours and maybe gives them an option to leave a message. If there were just one time zone, then I couldn't just say "9 to 5, monday to friday, local time"... I would have to say between between 1700 and 0100 gmt on the west coast, 1800 and 0200 gmt if you leave in the midwest, 2000 and 0300 gmt if you live in central usa, and 2100 to 0400 if you live on the east coast. Which is easier?
Also, how well would the date changing for a lot of people in the middle of their day work?
They don't owe you money if you refuse to accept cash... but neither do they owe you the services or goods for which you may have wanted to pay for in cash... in which case they are typically asked for immediately in advance of such services rendered or goods exchanged.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's extend that argument a little bit, shall we?
People who are offended by their supervisors sexually inappropriate behavior in the workplace can always just quit and go find a different employer... they are free to boycott the company... they are *not* free to to use legal recourse to force such clearly immature persons into behaving as they believe they ought to./
Now do you see where it comes from? Still think they are being immature? Or does the fault lie much deeper?
If I signed a contract stating that I was supposed to name my next child "Bob", they could try and sue me for violating that contract as well.... that doesn't mean that I'd actually end up owing them anything. A contract that requires you to do things that a company is not legally allowed to ask you to do is not enforceable. It should go without saying, even though it is usually made explicit in a non-compete contract and is true anyways even if you never sign one, is that you are not allowed to disclose any confidential knowledge or proprietary information to other parties, and in places where such contracts are actually legally enforceable, an actual non-compete can at most only prohibit you from utilizing your former position in the company to harm the company, where it is important to realize that hypothetical harm does not actually amount to harm... the fact that you could face civil damages for doing so is going to generally going to be understood by a judge as incentive for you to not do such a thing, and in absence of any evidence that they may have which suggests that you did (which they would not have if you did not do so), they would not be able to convince a judge that you owed them anything... the fact that you may have lied about the detail in the contract gives them no more legal claim to damages than it would be, again, if they had required you to name your next child after your boss and you didn't.
That said, I'll certainly agree that it's sort of pointless to sign contracts you don't intend to abide by, even if aspects of the contract are not enforceable, because doing so can still potentially damage your credibility, if that is worth anything to you... but in my experience with non-competes, it will never be worth a company's time to ever even go after you just because you might happen to work for a competitor unless you have actually used your former position in that company to harm your previous company in some way (which in many cases, depending upon your former position with the company, you may be able to accomplish with equal efficacy without having any employer afterwards at all, since they cannot generally prohibit you from simply communicating with whomever you like when you are not within the company, unless said communication would also entail a violation of criminal law in some way, which may be entirely theoretically possible, and would not just carry civil penalties anyways, and if such were the case, then it would be equally true even if you had not signed the non-compete at all).
As far as I know, the only organization that you are obligated to make any kind of regular report of your employment status to is the revenue branch of the regional government. What would the company do if you didn't report in? Hire a private eye to track you down? How likely is it going to be even worth their time to pursue you unless you have actually misappopriated some of their intellectual property, or else otherwise used your former position in the other company to unfairly manipulate circumstances to be measurably disadvantageous to them?
It really seems that the only utility that noncompetes accomplish is to protect trade secrets or confidential information, but such information or property is already protected by civil or sometimes even criminal law, whether you sign such an agreement or not. If, in your new job, you are not disclosing any such trade secrets or confidential information about your previous company, then your previous employer would never have any practical reason to care who you work for beyond the concern that you *MIGHT* do or say something that you really aren't supposed to, but of course if you do that, then they can actually file charges against you... and depending on the cost to the company, you can even go to jail, so it's not in your best interests to disclose such information anyways. Arguing that you *MIGHT* do something to harm them may be grounds for them to file a lawsuit, but ultimately the onus would still be upon them to prove any actual damages to a judge before you would ever owe them anything. As I pointed out above, you have good incentive to *NOT* disclose such secrets or information, so in the absence of any evidence that you ever did such a thing, a judge would probably be inclined to not award any such damages.
.... your former employer you are working for them. Or unless you actually misappropriate some ip from your old company, which is protected by laws that can carry criminal penalty for infringement and not just civil penalties anyways, whether you signed a non-compete or not, how would your old company even know what you were doing after you left?
Point 1 is solved by basing it on their gross yearly income, not their net taxable income. If they hide that, then they are quite blatantly guilty of tax fraud, which carries other penalties.
Point 2 is a non-problem
Point 3 isn't a problem in general because the most frequent infringers are typically wealthy people who feel they can afford to pay the fines if they get caught.
What about the possibility that the employer just didn't happen to like any of the others that he interviewed? You might get hundreds of applicants, but will probably interview only a dozen or so... what if the one with a criminal record happened to still leave the best overall impression?
How about the fact that knowledge of it might make the employer uncomfortable? Or is the law allowed to dictate which people we are and are not allowed to dislike? At best, all they can do is say that the employer is not allowed to ask about such convictions.
Last time I used panda for what was just supposed to be an online scan, it went and changed a lot of settings on all of my web browsers, causing no small headache to put back to where they were, even after the software had been removed from my computer. That was about 4 years ago. I haven't used Panda since.
Actually, most of those questions have already been answered.... the answers are simply always conveniently ignored by people who seem to want nothing more than to believe that there should be something to argue about here.
The effect on the surrounding environment of taking all of that energy out of the wind is actually negligible, except right on the surface. Consider that our atmosphere is many miles thick, and virtuallly all of what contributes to our weather is at a much higher altitude than what windfarms actually reach. There may appear to be some local disruption in the wake of a large winddfarm, but this disruption is only near the surface of the planet, and the overall weather patterns remain unaffected to any sort of remotely alarming degree. You will experience much more pronounced effects from living in or near a city that has many tall buildings.
So do skyscrapers and many other man-made objects.
Per installation instance, windfarms are actually very ecologically benign compared to other things that modern civilization seems to think is perfectly acceptable.
As the battery in my current watch, which does everything I really need a watch to do and several things that I don't, but are nice to have, lasts about 5 years, I don't think asking for one full year is out of line. Either battery tech needs to improve, or they need to improve the technology's power consumption.
The point of wearable computing, IMO, is to be something that you can completely forget about... technology that invisibly blends into your existing lifestyle, assisting you when you call upon it, but if you have to take it off and charge it every single night, then that means you have to think about it every day too... which kind of defeats the point.
I would usually wear my watch in bed... and sometimes even wear it in the shower if I haven't remembered to take it off before. Water resistant to some ridiculous depth that would probably only be a concern of mine if I were into scuba diving, I can even go swimming with it on, and it will not be harmed in any way.
The tech just has too far to go, too many hurdles to overcome, for me to even be mildly interested.
Then by definition, that would not be the same chapter... it would be a new chapter that is reusing the old name.
They vowed that African-Americans will "never" be allowed to join the campus chapter, and they stayed true to that vow by getting the chapter closed down.
Not that for a second I condone such attittudes, just saying that from a purely literalist standpoint, they certainly weren't lying.
Honestly, if it weren't *THAT* much higher than any of the other feature requests, I might even buy that as plausible.... but when it has more votes than the next six most popularly voted for issues combined??? With that kind of gap, it is almost certain that they are getting more direct requests for that feature than they are for any other feature as well.
I mean it's POSSIBLE that the feature requests forum is entirely orthogonal to any unbiased random sampling of unity users, but there's no particular reason to suppose that were true. Given that their entire comment itself which said that they cared about democracy actually only tied it in with the notion of keeping costs down to increase the number of people that could utilize it, I am inclined to think that the folks at Unity Technologies just don't actually know what the word "democracy" means.
Some would argue that they have the added benefit of not requiring you to actually be in any way sociable with those around you.
You and several others have been pointing this out to me... so it appears that some things have changed. I will have to check it out in more detail later.
Looks like trying to do any team development, even for a very tiny team of two or three people might still not be possible, however.... it looks like the personal edition might still be a headache for sharing of assets even between just two people.
Of course, but then why bother tallying "votes" for an issue at all?
I laughed out loud when I read that.
In the feature requests feedback forum, making the editor available for Linux is vastly more popular than any other feature request for Unity,. beating out the next most popular by about a factor of 4, and Unity Technologies has publicly stated that they have absolutely no plans on ever porting their editor tools to Linux.
If that's the business decision they are comfortable with, that's one thing, but considering that in the article where they are bragging about how they are promoting democracy by tying it in with how the product was being priced, rather than what people have actually said that they want, I'm pretty sure that I can safely conclude the developers at Unity do not have the foggiest idea what the word "democracy" actually means.
If you even want to *make* products that are practical in any kind of general sense, it isn't free. In my experience, the personal edition is quite seriously feature limited from what you get with the professional edition, and isn't really practical for anything beyond introductory hobbyist level experimentation... to become at least familiar with its capabilities. I can't imagine any serious developer not outgrowing the personal edition and being frustrated by what the professional edition can do that the personal edition cannot within their first year of Unity development, if not a whole lot less time than that. And that might be long before you've ever made a dime of profit.
No, the personal edition does not have the same feature set.
Other than what this article links to, who else has suggested that Unity 5 was free?
Also, how well would the date changing for a lot of people in the middle of their day work?
They don't owe you money if you refuse to accept cash... but neither do they owe you the services or goods for which you may have wanted to pay for in cash... in which case they are typically asked for immediately in advance of such services rendered or goods exchanged.