Well, it took someone with Jobs' business sense to realize that the original Apple computer was something that was worth trying to market. Woz, who had actually built the thing, had made it because he thought it was cool (which it was), not because he wanted to monetize it. While the original Apple computer could well have existed without Steve Jobs, it would not have become anywhere even close to as wildly popular, and there is one HELL of a lot in the way most people use computers in their own homes today that can be traced directly to that success over 30 years ago. Perhaps somebody else would have done what he was a part of if had he not done it first, but the same could be said about almost anything... he may not have been the inventor, but he did have significant influence. It is both cold and grossly unobservant to not acknowledge and give him credit for that fact.
For what it's worth, I don't care how the media appears to have elevated Jobs to practically sainthood either... but I do recognize he was perceived of as an important figure in today's home computing world, and if for no other reason than that there are a lot of people worldwide who *DO* sincerely respect him for that fact, it would have made a lot more sense for Mr. Stallman to have just kept his mouth shut on this issue for at least several months before expressing this sentiment. At the very worst, he may have found that Apple's practices that he dislikes so much don't change at all in the months ahead, at which point expressing any sort of relief that Mr. Jobs was gone would be wholly irrelevant.
Saying that one is glad that someone is gone immediately after the latter has died is, I'm afraid, *ALWAYS* going to viewed as largely synonymous with being glad that somebody is dead. It doesn't matter how hard you try to disclaim such a sentiment, this is just the way things are. If he had said the same thing 6 weeks ago when Jobs resigned as CEO, it could well have meant the exact same thing that Stallman was attempting to convey, but would not have had the same implication.
Stallman needs to grow up... and hopefully learn some human compassion while he's at it.
That if it had been patented and licensed before it became popular, then it never would have been adopted widely enough to have become popular in the first place.
What does Mars sound like? It has an atmosphere, so there should be some sound... of air blowing across the plains or something... has it ever been recorded?
Assuming it were even possible, I believe what would have to happen for it to be remotely viable is for the police to arrest people *as* the crimes are being committed, ideally before any permanent damage is done, although that unfortunately may not always be possible.
Any attempt whatsoever to arrest people before a crime is actually committed regardless of the alleged certainty of it is in all ways wholly unfair and unjust. It is tantamount to arresting somebody for something that they did in an alternate universe.
But that said, it might mean something to you. If you feel better about yourself remaining where you are than you would leaving your current employer high and dry in exchange for a higher salary, then that peace of mind is certainly of great value, and the guilt you may feel at your new job if you were to leave your current one could even adversely affect your capabilities.
It is, of course, ultimately up to you.... How do *YOU* feel about leaving your current job? Would you regret leaving if it turned out that your former employer had difficulties after your absence? Is that even likely? If it were to happen, weigh its probability against how much you would likely regret not taking the new job? If you can answer these questions for yourself, you will have arrived at the most sensible course of action that you can take with the knowledge that you have now.
The internet, however, is a unicast medium, so every new user takes up more bandwidth.
This is generally true at present, certainly, but it does not have to be the case. IPv4 has multicasting support, although because it was not originally part of the IPv4 design, its adoption rate has always been a bit sketchy. IPv6, however, supported multicasting right out of the box, so I would expect that multicasting support would be more broadly supported under that stack.
If you make an update to certain important system executables or files, there is simply no getting around rebooting, as you cannot simply terminate the appropriate executable and restart it without having to also restart all the processes that depend on that executable, which in some cases can be essentially equivalent to rebooting.
In Canada, the only equivalent to "at will employment" is during an employee's initial probation, whose duration must be specified by the company at the time the employee is hired, and cannot be unduly longer than necessary to determine the employee's suitability with the company. The typical probationary period is around 3 months, or 500 hours of paid time, although I've heard of some places where it can extend up to about a year. It is not difficult at all to fire an employee for almost any reason during their probation. If they are competent enough to pass the probationary period, then as long as their competency does not start to diminish, and as long as the company has an ongoing need of an employee that does that particular job, there is no objectively justifiable reason to discharge them. Both of the aforementioned reasons are always just causes for dismissal, even after the probationary period, but after the probation, suitable notice must be given (the length of notice is 1 week for the employee's first year, then 2 weeks up until the employee finishes their fifth year, and after that 3 weeks), or else the employee must be given equivalent severance pay in lieu of notice.
Noncompetes are generally unenforceable in Canada as well, which does not have at-will employment. There are certain aspects of noncompetes that *are* enforceable, such as not stealing any of that company's clients that they had right up until you were no longer working for them, but under absolutely no circumstances can a previous employer prevent you from working for another company, even a direct competitor, once you are no longer working for them, unless they can show (quite conclusively) that it would not be possible for you to do that job without disclosing confidential information that you had acquired while with them.
I can only speak from my own experience here, which is limited to jobs I've had in Canada, and which has no concept of at-will employment beyond a probationary period that must always be of finite duration. IANAL, of course, but I've had a disproportionate amount of experience with employment law (because I have had the misfortune on more than occasion of being employed by people who either lacked ethical conduct or else were actually violating regional employment standards).
Anyways... even if you are under contract, you are still free to quit, but there may be penalties for doing so which were outlined in the original contract. If you do not agree with those penalties, unless they are in actual violation of any laws, then you probably shouldn't take the job unless you know for sure that you aren't going to quit. If you do end up quitting, you cannot argue that you were unaware of the penalties because they were laid out when you took the job. Even then, however, you are still free to quit, but you could still potentially be sued, but the employer would have to show actual damages if the amount being sued for was to retract any already awarded wages. The things that an employee generally forfeits if they quit prematurely in such cases are things like hiring incentives... not their actual wages. Unless actual damages can be shown that the employee was responsible for before they quit, the employer cannot ever sue for wages that are already paid for work that was actually done.
An employer, meanwhile, is always perfectly free to discharge any employee who is not an effective worker. Not having at-will employment in this case isn't about guaranteeing jobs for people who can't perform jobs effectively. It is about ensuring that companies that hire employees behave professionally and responsibly when hiring and firing individuals.
The closest thing we have to at-will employment is an employee probationary period - which begins when an employee is first hired, and lasts for a finite amount of time that is outlined when the employee is first hired. Generally, this probationary period is 3 months, although sometimes it can be as long as a full year. It is the responsibility of every company to evaluate an employee's suitability with a company during this period, and there is generally a semi-formal process which happens at the end of a probationary period to put an employee into permanent status (they generally do not receive any employee benefits such as extended health or dental services during the probationary period either). After the probationary period has officially ended, firing a person involves more paperwork - an actual reason must be given, and the reason must be one that is verifiable in some way. For example, if the employee is no longer performing adequately, then the employer must advise the employee of this, and have the employee sign something stating that they have received such a notice. If the situation continues even after the employee has had sufficient time to correct the shortcoming (in a judge's determination, if it came to that), then the employer can generally terminate the employee immediately.
It is unfortunately not unheard of for employers to, under the radar, abuse the "probationary period" for employees as a means of being able to easily fire people for arbitrary and entirely unfair reasons... or so that they won't have to start paying employee benefits. Difficulty in proving such cases in court allows these companies to continue to get away with such practices.
If you are fired from your job, for any reason, you may be ineligible for unemployment benefits, unless you can show that the reason for being fired was unrelated to any sort of professional or ethical misconduct. Even then, getting fired from a job introduces delays to receiving benefits that would not normally happen. After the probationary period, an employer is required by law to state the general reason for any termination of employment on a record of employment that both the employee and the government each receive copies of. During the probationary period, it is typically assumed that the employee was simply unsuitable if they are terminated in that time.
In general, campus police have *ALL* of the responsibilities and duties of an actual police force within their jurisdiction. The only time outside police typically are involved in a situation is if the campus police do not have the resources to deal with it on their own (because they are a smaller outfit with a tighter focus, and may be correspondingly less equipped to deal with certain types of atypical situations, much like how a small town's police force might not be equipped to deal with every conceivable emergency).
You may be confusing "campus police" with "security guard".
The former are, for most campuses at least, a legitimate police force, Of course their badges don't make them real police... but what they have the lawfully recognized authority to do and their responsibilities does.
You could probably make a case for that IMO... but IANAL. To be totally safe, announce your intention yourself when a human comes on the phone, and then give them a moment before you actually start recording.
In general, most people calling from a real business will not mind being recorded if the matter they are calling about is of actual importance to the company,so it's not a very effective way to stop a legitimate collection agency from repeatedly calling about an actual debt, but if they do something wrong, you'll have it recorded, and can submit that to the authorities when you report them.
The hardware for recording phone conversations at home isn't entirely insignificant, but unless your finances are *really* dire, it shouldn't break your bank account either, and is not a bad thing to have handy.
If you live in a "one party consent" jurisdiction when it comes to recording conversations, you do not even need to announce your intent (nor even infer that their permission may granted when they announce that the call may be recorded).
And visiting other star systems may be nothing compared to technologies we have not even imagined yet. My point is that there's little reason to assume that the mere acquisition of some technology is going to bring with it a better sense of morality... in fact, if humans are any indication of the general trend for life in the cosmos - just the opposite would be true.
Like any civilization smart enough and advanced enough to travel to lands half a world away probably comes to the conclusion that interfering with more primitive civilizations' development is a bad idea?
Report their activities, and then forget about it. If they call again, report them again. Eventually, the governing agency for collection companies (the FTC in the USA) will decide to stop giving them warnings and actually issue a fine. You won't get anything for this unless you actually sue (generally not worth the hassle), but even if you don't, you'll at least you'll stop them from pulling this crap with yourself and other people.
Yes... that is the last that YOU will hear of it. It is also likely the last you will hear from the collection agency, at least with regards to that particular debt... unless you actually do owe the money being asked for and there is no C&D. If they keep calling back, keep filing complaints. Sometimes they don't always pursue it... simply issuing warnings instead of actually fining them. But I was up to making one complain a day one time with one agency that lasted for a period of about 2 weeks. After that, they never called again.
The point of reporting these agencies when they violate business practices isn't to profit from it... it's to get them to stop doing it.
If *YOU* want to collect anything from them, yes... they still pay a fine to the agency that you don't get to collect, and it's considerably larger than $250. Each time they call back, report them again.
If a caller doesn't know what the regulations are, he'd be about to find out... in a probably less than pleasant way that's along the lines of "you're fired".
If it happens, advise them that they are violating the required business practices and standards for collection agencies, hang up, and sic the FTC on them.
You won't be harassed again. And odds are that the specific person who called you will be fired.
You definitely have the right to record absolutely any telephone conversations that you yourself are part of, as long as you inform the other party that you are going to do so. If they do not agree, they must discontinue talking to you. If they wish to continue to talk to you on the phone, then it is implied consent. Depending where you live, you may have to give the person the opportunity to refuse to be recorded, and discontinue talking to you before you can begin recording... but you cannot be charged with any wiretapping laws if you advise them you are going to record the call before you actually do.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it took someone with Jobs' business sense to realize that the original Apple computer was something that was worth trying to market. Woz, who had actually built the thing, had made it because he thought it was cool (which it was), not because he wanted to monetize it. While the original Apple computer could well have existed without Steve Jobs, it would not have become anywhere even close to as wildly popular, and there is one HELL of a lot in the way most people use computers in their own homes today that can be traced directly to that success over 30 years ago. Perhaps somebody else would have done what he was a part of if had he not done it first, but the same could be said about almost anything... he may not have been the inventor, but he did have significant influence. It is both cold and grossly unobservant to not acknowledge and give him credit for that fact.
For what it's worth, I don't care how the media appears to have elevated Jobs to practically sainthood either... but I do recognize he was perceived of as an important figure in today's home computing world, and if for no other reason than that there are a lot of people worldwide who *DO* sincerely respect him for that fact, it would have made a lot more sense for Mr. Stallman to have just kept his mouth shut on this issue for at least several months before expressing this sentiment. At the very worst, he may have found that Apple's practices that he dislikes so much don't change at all in the months ahead, at which point expressing any sort of relief that Mr. Jobs was gone would be wholly irrelevant.
Saying that one is glad that someone is gone immediately after the latter has died is, I'm afraid, *ALWAYS* going to viewed as largely synonymous with being glad that somebody is dead. It doesn't matter how hard you try to disclaim such a sentiment, this is just the way things are. If he had said the same thing 6 weeks ago when Jobs resigned as CEO, it could well have meant the exact same thing that Stallman was attempting to convey, but would not have had the same implication.
Stallman needs to grow up... and hopefully learn some human compassion while he's at it.
That if it had been patented and licensed before it became popular, then it never would have been adopted widely enough to have become popular in the first place.
What does Mars sound like? It has an atmosphere, so there should be some sound... of air blowing across the plains or something... has it ever been recorded?
Assuming it were even possible, I believe what would have to happen for it to be remotely viable is for the police to arrest people *as* the crimes are being committed, ideally before any permanent damage is done, although that unfortunately may not always be possible.
Any attempt whatsoever to arrest people before a crime is actually committed regardless of the alleged certainty of it is in all ways wholly unfair and unjust. It is tantamount to arresting somebody for something that they did in an alternate universe.
But that said, it might mean something to you. If you feel better about yourself remaining where you are than you would leaving your current employer high and dry in exchange for a higher salary, then that peace of mind is certainly of great value, and the guilt you may feel at your new job if you were to leave your current one could even adversely affect your capabilities.
It is, of course, ultimately up to you.... How do *YOU* feel about leaving your current job? Would you regret leaving if it turned out that your former employer had difficulties after your absence? Is that even likely? If it were to happen, weigh its probability against how much you would likely regret not taking the new job? If you can answer these questions for yourself, you will have arrived at the most sensible course of action that you can take with the knowledge that you have now.
This is generally true at present, certainly, but it does not have to be the case. IPv4 has multicasting support, although because it was not originally part of the IPv4 design, its adoption rate has always been a bit sketchy. IPv6, however, supported multicasting right out of the box, so I would expect that multicasting support would be more broadly supported under that stack.
If you make an update to certain important system executables or files, there is simply no getting around rebooting, as you cannot simply terminate the appropriate executable and restart it without having to also restart all the processes that depend on that executable, which in some cases can be essentially equivalent to rebooting.
In Canada, the only equivalent to "at will employment" is during an employee's initial probation, whose duration must be specified by the company at the time the employee is hired, and cannot be unduly longer than necessary to determine the employee's suitability with the company. The typical probationary period is around 3 months, or 500 hours of paid time, although I've heard of some places where it can extend up to about a year. It is not difficult at all to fire an employee for almost any reason during their probation. If they are competent enough to pass the probationary period, then as long as their competency does not start to diminish, and as long as the company has an ongoing need of an employee that does that particular job, there is no objectively justifiable reason to discharge them. Both of the aforementioned reasons are always just causes for dismissal, even after the probationary period, but after the probation, suitable notice must be given (the length of notice is 1 week for the employee's first year, then 2 weeks up until the employee finishes their fifth year, and after that 3 weeks), or else the employee must be given equivalent severance pay in lieu of notice.
It is almost certain that any third party TV over IP will contribute to your download cap.
Noncompetes are generally unenforceable in Canada as well, which does not have at-will employment. There are certain aspects of noncompetes that *are* enforceable, such as not stealing any of that company's clients that they had right up until you were no longer working for them, but under absolutely no circumstances can a previous employer prevent you from working for another company, even a direct competitor, once you are no longer working for them, unless they can show (quite conclusively) that it would not be possible for you to do that job without disclosing confidential information that you had acquired while with them.
I can only speak from my own experience here, which is limited to jobs I've had in Canada, and which has no concept of at-will employment beyond a probationary period that must always be of finite duration. IANAL, of course, but I've had a disproportionate amount of experience with employment law (because I have had the misfortune on more than occasion of being employed by people who either lacked ethical conduct or else were actually violating regional employment standards).
Anyways... even if you are under contract, you are still free to quit, but there may be penalties for doing so which were outlined in the original contract. If you do not agree with those penalties, unless they are in actual violation of any laws, then you probably shouldn't take the job unless you know for sure that you aren't going to quit. If you do end up quitting, you cannot argue that you were unaware of the penalties because they were laid out when you took the job. Even then, however, you are still free to quit, but you could still potentially be sued, but the employer would have to show actual damages if the amount being sued for was to retract any already awarded wages. The things that an employee generally forfeits if they quit prematurely in such cases are things like hiring incentives... not their actual wages. Unless actual damages can be shown that the employee was responsible for before they quit, the employer cannot ever sue for wages that are already paid for work that was actually done.
An employer, meanwhile, is always perfectly free to discharge any employee who is not an effective worker. Not having at-will employment in this case isn't about guaranteeing jobs for people who can't perform jobs effectively. It is about ensuring that companies that hire employees behave professionally and responsibly when hiring and firing individuals.
The closest thing we have to at-will employment is an employee probationary period - which begins when an employee is first hired, and lasts for a finite amount of time that is outlined when the employee is first hired. Generally, this probationary period is 3 months, although sometimes it can be as long as a full year. It is the responsibility of every company to evaluate an employee's suitability with a company during this period, and there is generally a semi-formal process which happens at the end of a probationary period to put an employee into permanent status (they generally do not receive any employee benefits such as extended health or dental services during the probationary period either). After the probationary period has officially ended, firing a person involves more paperwork - an actual reason must be given, and the reason must be one that is verifiable in some way. For example, if the employee is no longer performing adequately, then the employer must advise the employee of this, and have the employee sign something stating that they have received such a notice. If the situation continues even after the employee has had sufficient time to correct the shortcoming (in a judge's determination, if it came to that), then the employer can generally terminate the employee immediately.
It is unfortunately not unheard of for employers to, under the radar, abuse the "probationary period" for employees as a means of being able to easily fire people for arbitrary and entirely unfair reasons... or so that they won't have to start paying employee benefits. Difficulty in proving such cases in court allows these companies to continue to get away with such practices.
If you are fired from your job, for any reason, you may be ineligible for unemployment benefits, unless you can show that the reason for being fired was unrelated to any sort of professional or ethical misconduct. Even then, getting fired from a job introduces delays to receiving benefits that would not normally happen. After the probationary period, an employer is required by law to state the general reason for any termination of employment on a record of employment that both the employee and the government each receive copies of. During the probationary period, it is typically assumed that the employee was simply unsuitable if they are terminated in that time.
Name a single plus at will employment offers an employee that isn't already covered by statutes regarding slavery and minimum wage laws.
Incorrect.
In general, campus police have *ALL* of the responsibilities and duties of an actual police force within their jurisdiction. The only time outside police typically are involved in a situation is if the campus police do not have the resources to deal with it on their own (because they are a smaller outfit with a tighter focus, and may be correspondingly less equipped to deal with certain types of atypical situations, much like how a small town's police force might not be equipped to deal with every conceivable emergency).
The former are, for most campuses at least, a legitimate police force, Of course their badges don't make them real police... but what they have the lawfully recognized authority to do and their responsibilities does.
Really... when is it *NOT* the case that a majority of a resource is utilized by a minority of its utilizers?
You could probably make a case for that IMO... but IANAL. To be totally safe, announce your intention yourself when a human comes on the phone, and then give them a moment before you actually start recording.
In general, most people calling from a real business will not mind being recorded if the matter they are calling about is of actual importance to the company,so it's not a very effective way to stop a legitimate collection agency from repeatedly calling about an actual debt, but if they do something wrong, you'll have it recorded, and can submit that to the authorities when you report them.
The hardware for recording phone conversations at home isn't entirely insignificant, but unless your finances are *really* dire, it shouldn't break your bank account either, and is not a bad thing to have handy.
If you live in a "one party consent" jurisdiction when it comes to recording conversations, you do not even need to announce your intent (nor even infer that their permission may granted when they announce that the call may be recorded).
And visiting other star systems may be nothing compared to technologies we have not even imagined yet. My point is that there's little reason to assume that the mere acquisition of some technology is going to bring with it a better sense of morality... in fact, if humans are any indication of the general trend for life in the cosmos - just the opposite would be true.
Not by today's standards, sure.... by standards back then? And considering the number of people that died trying? *HUGE*.
Like any civilization smart enough and advanced enough to travel to lands half a world away probably comes to the conclusion that interfering with more primitive civilizations' development is a bad idea?
Oh, wait...
Your hypothesis is lacking example.
Report their activities, and then forget about it. If they call again, report them again. Eventually, the governing agency for collection companies (the FTC in the USA) will decide to stop giving them warnings and actually issue a fine. You won't get anything for this unless you actually sue (generally not worth the hassle), but even if you don't, you'll at least you'll stop them from pulling this crap with yourself and other people.
Yes... that is the last that YOU will hear of it. It is also likely the last you will hear from the collection agency, at least with regards to that particular debt... unless you actually do owe the money being asked for and there is no C&D. If they keep calling back, keep filing complaints. Sometimes they don't always pursue it... simply issuing warnings instead of actually fining them. But I was up to making one complain a day one time with one agency that lasted for a period of about 2 weeks. After that, they never called again. The point of reporting these agencies when they violate business practices isn't to profit from it... it's to get them to stop doing it.
If *YOU* want to collect anything from them, yes... they still pay a fine to the agency that you don't get to collect, and it's considerably larger than $250. Each time they call back, report them again.
If a caller doesn't know what the regulations are, he'd be about to find out... in a probably less than pleasant way that's along the lines of "you're fired".
If it happens, advise them that they are violating the required business practices and standards for collection agencies, hang up, and sic the FTC on them.
You won't be harassed again. And odds are that the specific person who called you will be fired.
You definitely have the right to record absolutely any telephone conversations that you yourself are part of, as long as you inform the other party that you are going to do so. If they do not agree, they must discontinue talking to you. If they wish to continue to talk to you on the phone, then it is implied consent. Depending where you live, you may have to give the person the opportunity to refuse to be recorded, and discontinue talking to you before you can begin recording... but you cannot be charged with any wiretapping laws if you advise them you are going to record the call before you actually do.
No... they were rules that *ALL* collection agencies were expected to abide by. If anyone did not, they would face rather large fines when reported.