Good point. If any employee had a gun to his head when he signed his employment contract, he should be able to sue, claiming duress. Thanks for pointing that out!
The threat of violence is not the only way to put a person under duress, simpleton. Had you actually taken the time to read the Wiki article I linked to, instead of posting this drek, you might have actually learned something.
Not relevant. Signing it is a voluntary condition of employment, same as an NDA or similar.
Right - "do this or we'll destroy/limit your livelihood." Totally voluntary, just like being able to afford food and shelter, right?
FYI, it is not a "voluntary condition of employment" if not signing means you lose your job - that's the definition of compulsory. Also, just signing the document does not make it legally binding - you cannot, in fact, force your employees to sign a document that states they must perform fellatio on you on the second Tuesday of every month. Well, OK, you could make them sign it, but that doesn't magically make it a legally binding contract, as the terms of said contract are not legal to begin with.
I'm sure the vast majority of those employees whose info was sent had signed something on their first day of employment that gave the company the right to do this.
Until the courts strike that sort of thing down, you got no recourse.
BTW, you might want to look up the history of corporations. For all intents and purposes, what we call "corporations" today originated, as an entity, in the early 1800s, with the railroads pioneering the concept.
prior to that, even; one could say that corporate overreach (with the government's complicit assistance) was one of the main causes that led to the American Revolution.
So, no, the framers probably didn't consider the issue of whether corporations, be they banks or anything else, should be bailed out.
I didn't remember who said it, but it is an excellent piece of wisdom:
All the simple solutions have been found.
If someone comes up with a solution to a current-world problem that can be explained in a few sentences, I tend to become very, very sceptical. The world largely isn't that simple anymore, and we have entire professions whose jobs basically is to find loopholes.
There's a second part to that piece of wisdom you missed:
Just because the simplest solutions have been found, doesn't mean they're being implemented.
Besides, finding solutions is the easy part - the hard part is getting the greedy fucks that are supposed to represent us, the People, to actually do their jobs.
In this case, the word "independent" has a different meaning than it has in any other context: it means that a business isn't certified by a product's manufacturer as competent to service that product. What form that certification takes may vary from one manufacturer to another, but certainly it always costs money; is it an egregious profit-seeking amount, or is it limited to covering the cost of administering the process? That probably varies, too, but you might expect a manufacturer like Nikon to price the certification process quite selfishly. It's not entirely unreasonable for manufacturers to want to protect their own reputation by ensuring that people who attempt to maintain their products in the field are competent to do so. It's also not unreasonable for them to expect to recoup their costs to ensure that (though using it for profiteering would be sleazy).
So ultimately the real beef of people like this fellow is that they either can't afford to cough up what it would cost to maintain the various certifications or simply choose not to do so because it goes against their religion or politics.
Doesn't matter; as the consumer who owns the device in need of repair, it is my right to decide whether I want to have the device repaired by a "certified" shop, or a non-certified one, or fix it myself, or put 40 rounds of.223 through it, if I so desire.
Once consumers have exchanged their money for a product, the manufacturer should not have any say in how the product is used or serviced. Period.
This isn't an iphone, fer chrissake. It's not some disposable toy that you replace every 18 months.
This makes me sad:(
Not because you call an iPhone a "disposable toy," but rather because I never thought I'd live in a society where some folks still starve to death in the streets, meanwhile others think throwing a $500 piece of electronic equipment in the trash is no big deal.
Car companies don't sell parts to independent repair shops. They sell parts to dealers who then go on to resell them to independent repair shops.
Any shop owner buying his parts from the dealer is an idiot - he can get the exact same parts from Autozone or O'Reilly's, without getting gouged by dealership markup. In fact, most auto parts retailers will set up special, discounted commercial accounts for shops to place their orders.
And what if car companies also took up the same idea. No independent repair shops, and higher prices for all repairs.
Actually, with cars the manufacturers do engage in this sort of kill-off-competing-repair-shops behavior, but not by limiting availability of parts; instead, they make the highly-specialized tools necessary to install the parts available only through the dealerships, who refuse to sell the tools to anyone.
Source: I am, among other things, an auto mechanic.
You, on the other hand, decided to launch a mini polemic on how to gain credibility. ("...everyone who isn't a fringe, gun-grabbing sociopath."). Please.
Incorrect; I was merely pointing out that reasonable, non-extremist types, i.e. those who aren't so far-left as the gun-grabbers (if you can think of a better term, posit it) won't be positively swayed by such rhetoric. You may see it as a "mini polemic," but that's merely a consequence of perspective.
FYI, every time you use a term like "gun nut" or "lunatics with guns" when referring to your fellow citizens, you lose credibility with everyone who isn't a fringe, gun-grabbing sociopath.
Hate to break it to you, but when I see people get easily butthurt over being called a name, I generally refer to them as insecure nuts. Bravo.
?
Pointing out that name calling, as opposed to rational discourse, is what you consider getting "butthurt?" Man, I'd hate to be your debate instructor.
Please note, I'm in favor of responsible firearms ownership, reasonable amounts of controls related to background checks and such and own a pre-ban weapon. I'm saying this to save you the trouble of calling me a bunny-kissing-tree-hugger-commie-liberal-fascist-Nazi with herpagonnasyphilAIDS.
Don't worry - unlike what is an apparent majority (although the illusion of such could be a side effect of how loud the extremists are) of people, I try to avoid making baseless judgments about people I don't know from Adam. In fact, I really wish people wouldn't engage in that emotional, knee-jerk shit at all, as it prevents those of us who are capable of cogent thought from having the well-reasoned debate we so desperately need.
I never said I was offended; Hell, if I took every backward-ass douche-nozzle who thought poorly of me seriously, I'd never get any sleep.
What I said was, opening your argument with an insult doesn't encourage anyone to take you seriously. And I stand by that statement. Also, as an addendum, continuing the needless and baseless barrage of playground name-calling doesn't really help your cause either.
FYI, You may want to consider some remedial reading comprehension courses, considering...
Huh, my exchanges with the ultra-left wing sociopaths typically go a different direction:
Me: If the 2nd amendment only applies to muskets, then why doesn't the 1st amendment only apply to newspapers and books?
Liberal: Because the 1st amendment was re-interpreted to include new forms of speech and of the press. The constitution is a "living document" and therefore should be allowed to change due to technological advancement.
Live in northern CA? Probably no big deal. However, here in the Bible Belt, being outed can, will, and has in the past, cause a person to lose everything.
And, of course, there's seemingly no end to the stories of gay teens being outed at school, then killing themselves due to the subsequent abuse.
Also I am not using a photo for payment, Did I have to post the photo to use FB? no , i didnt, therefore it is not payment
Read the EULA - by agreeing to it, you are saying that you want a facebook account, and in exchange (i.e., payment), you will let them have universal rights to all media you post therein.
Granted, IANAL, but I don't think you have to be one to understand how slimeball capitalists operate.
sorry but legally you are wrong. If I take a photo of you, i am allowed to do whatever I want with it, including posting it on FB, 4chan etc. I can give it to a newspaper for free, I can even post it on a billboard for free. I may not agree with it however it is the law, how do you think paparazi get to do what they do? do you really think britney spears gave her ok to gawker or whoever to post up photos of her vagina? I doubt it.
That's not universally true - pictures taken in a public space, like a park or on a street, yes, you can "do what you want" like the paparazzi do - that's how they get away with vag shots on celebrities, by taking the picture from a public street or sidewalk.
However, if the photo is taken candidly, i.e. on private land, or any setting in which there is an expectation of privacy, then no, you do not have the right to "do whatever you want with it." If you want to test this, feel free to walk into the dressing room of any clothing retailer, snap a few pics, then post them online.
How exactly is your privacy "invaded" by having a photo of you tagged as you automatically instead of manually?
You mean, aside from the fact that:
- I never gave permission for my image to be placed online,
- I was never asked by either facebook or the person posting the image if I was OK with it,
- The photos that other people put up of you may show you in an unflattering light, or doing something illegal, or supporting/protesting a policy/organization that your employer would take issue with, and thus impact your personal and/or professional life (just ask Micheal Phelps about that one)
- the possibility that the algorithm isn't perfect, and thus may accidentally start tagging, say, all pictures of hypodermic needles (or something equally questionable) with my name?
Other than those things and probably several others that I haven't thought of yet, no, no privacy invasion at all...
Contrary to what the social network profiteers want you to think, celebrities are not the only people who have a right to decide how and where their image is used.
Such nonsense. That YOU can't search for some unknown face, doesn't mean some privileged few (perhaps with a National Security Letter in hand) can't search.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. If any employee had a gun to his head when he signed his employment contract, he should be able to sue, claiming duress. Thanks for pointing that out!
The threat of violence is not the only way to put a person under duress, simpleton. Had you actually taken the time to read the Wiki article I linked to, instead of posting this drek, you might have actually learned something.
Not relevant. Signing it is a voluntary condition of employment, same as an NDA or similar.
Right - "do this or we'll destroy/limit your livelihood." Totally voluntary, just like being able to afford food and shelter, right?
FYI, it is not a "voluntary condition of employment" if not signing means you lose your job - that's the definition of compulsory. Also, just signing the document does not make it legally binding - you cannot, in fact, force your employees to sign a document that states they must perform fellatio on you on the second Tuesday of every month. Well, OK, you could make them sign it, but that doesn't magically make it a legally binding contract, as the terms of said contract are not legal to begin with.
I'm sure the vast majority of those employees whose info was sent had signed something on their first day of employment that gave the company the right to do this.
Until the courts strike that sort of thing down, you got no recourse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress
BTW, you might want to look up the history of corporations. For all intents and purposes, what we call "corporations" today originated, as an entity, in the early 1800s, with the railroads pioneering the concept.
prior to that, even; one could say that corporate overreach (with the government's complicit assistance) was one of the main causes that led to the American Revolution.
So, no, the framers probably didn't consider the issue of whether corporations, be they banks or anything else, should be bailed out.
In the modern sense, no, but they did do a bit of corporate bailing-out of their own...
I didn't remember who said it, but it is an excellent piece of wisdom:
All the simple solutions have been found.
If someone comes up with a solution to a current-world problem that can be explained in a few sentences, I tend to become very, very sceptical. The world largely isn't that simple anymore, and we have entire professions whose jobs basically is to find loopholes.
There's a second part to that piece of wisdom you missed:
Just because the simplest solutions have been found, doesn't mean they're being implemented.
Besides, finding solutions is the easy part - the hard part is getting the greedy fucks that are supposed to represent us, the People, to actually do their jobs.
Simplest solution: reinstate Glass-Steagal, and stick to that shit this time.
Next simplest solution: make "Bail-out" == Nationalization. if we taxpayers are footing the bill, we have every right to own that motherfucker.
Yea, it really is that easy.
In this case, the word "independent" has a different meaning than it has in any other context: it means that a business isn't certified by a product's manufacturer as competent to service that product. What form that certification takes may vary from one manufacturer to another, but certainly it always costs money; is it an egregious profit-seeking amount, or is it limited to covering the cost of administering the process? That probably varies, too, but you might expect a manufacturer like Nikon to price the certification process quite selfishly. It's not entirely unreasonable for manufacturers to want to protect their own reputation by ensuring that people who attempt to maintain their products in the field are competent to do so. It's also not unreasonable for them to expect to recoup their costs to ensure that (though using it for profiteering would be sleazy).
So ultimately the real beef of people like this fellow is that they either can't afford to cough up what it would cost to maintain the various certifications or simply choose not to do so because it goes against their religion or politics.
Doesn't matter; as the consumer who owns the device in need of repair, it is my right to decide whether I want to have the device repaired by a "certified" shop, or a non-certified one, or fix it myself, or put 40 rounds of .223 through it, if I so desire.
Once consumers have exchanged their money for a product, the manufacturer should not have any say in how the product is used or serviced. Period.
This isn't an iphone, fer chrissake. It's not some disposable toy that you replace every 18 months.
This makes me sad :(
Not because you call an iPhone a "disposable toy," but rather because I never thought I'd live in a society where some folks still starve to death in the streets, meanwhile others think throwing a $500 piece of electronic equipment in the trash is no big deal.
Although, I will add Nikon to my boycott list right now, along with Sony and Microsoft. I will never forget.
Why just Nikon? He lists Canon and Sony as well. Good luck buying a non-pro but still decent camera while avoiding those three.
I bought my wife one of those 16MP, knockoff GE "hybrid" cameras (point-and-shoot features, DSLR looks) last year; works fine, no complaints.
This one, as a matter o' fact.
Car companies don't sell parts to independent repair shops. They sell parts to dealers who then go on to resell them to independent repair shops.
Any shop owner buying his parts from the dealer is an idiot - he can get the exact same parts from Autozone or O'Reilly's, without getting gouged by dealership markup. In fact, most auto parts retailers will set up special, discounted commercial accounts for shops to place their orders.
And what if car companies also took up the same idea. No independent repair shops, and higher prices for all repairs.
Actually, with cars the manufacturers do engage in this sort of kill-off-competing-repair-shops behavior, but not by limiting availability of parts; instead, they make the highly-specialized tools necessary to install the parts available only through the dealerships, who refuse to sell the tools to anyone.
Source: I am, among other things, an auto mechanic.
Why bother with Gnome for your apps,
Because Gnome exists, and has been/is used by lots and lots of people.
when you can target what might become a broader standard?
You just answered your own question.
As much as I try to avoid pointless rhetorical attacks, I feel this one is appropriate:
You are an idiot. Learn how to read, idiot.
You, on the other hand, decided to launch a mini polemic on how to gain credibility. ("...everyone who isn't a fringe, gun-grabbing sociopath."). Please.
Incorrect; I was merely pointing out that reasonable, non-extremist types, i.e. those who aren't so far-left as the gun-grabbers (if you can think of a better term, posit it) won't be positively swayed by such rhetoric. You may see it as a "mini polemic," but that's merely a consequence of perspective.
P.S. I was the debate champion at my high school.
Good for you - Nobody else cares.
Where did I say it in this comment of mine: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3426877&cid=42762891 ?
I dunno, that's not the comment I was replying to - this one was:
Wow, I see fox news gun nut crowd is moderating today! You go guys!
However, upon reading the comment you quoted above, I fail to see how that's flamebait; incorrect, yes, but not flamebait.
If you are at a party hitting a bong and I take a photo of you I can post that photo without issues, ask Micheal Phelps.
...
I think I'm just going to sit back and let this one sink in on its own...
FYI, every time you use a term like "gun nut" or "lunatics with guns" when referring to your fellow citizens, you lose credibility with everyone who isn't a fringe, gun-grabbing sociopath.
Hate to break it to you, but when I see people get easily butthurt over being called a name, I generally refer to them as insecure nuts. Bravo.
?
Pointing out that name calling, as opposed to rational discourse, is what you consider getting "butthurt?" Man, I'd hate to be your debate instructor.
Please note, I'm in favor of responsible firearms ownership, reasonable amounts of controls related to background checks and such and own a pre-ban weapon. I'm saying this to save you the trouble of calling me a bunny-kissing-tree-hugger-commie-liberal-fascist-Nazi with herpagonnasyphilAIDS.
Don't worry - unlike what is an apparent majority (although the illusion of such could be a side effect of how loud the extremists are) of people, I try to avoid making baseless judgments about people I don't know from Adam. In fact, I really wish people wouldn't engage in that emotional, knee-jerk shit at all, as it prevents those of us who are capable of cogent thought from having the well-reasoned debate we so desperately need.
I'm sorry that you're offended by that term.
I never said I was offended; Hell, if I took every backward-ass douche-nozzle who thought poorly of me seriously, I'd never get any sleep.
What I said was, opening your argument with an insult doesn't encourage anyone to take you seriously. And I stand by that statement. Also, as an addendum, continuing the needless and baseless barrage of playground name-calling doesn't really help your cause either.
FYI, You may want to consider some remedial reading comprehension courses, considering...
Huh, my exchanges with the ultra-left wing sociopaths typically go a different direction:
Me: If the 2nd amendment only applies to muskets, then why doesn't the 1st amendment only apply to newspapers and books?
Liberal: Because the 1st amendment was re-interpreted to include new forms of speech and of the press. The constitution is a "living document" and therefore should be allowed to change due to technological advancement.
Me: Exactly. Thank you for proving my point.
Liberal: ... GUN NUT! MURDER LOVER! CHILD HATER! RANT RANT RANT RANT!
The fucked up part? I'm just barely exaggerating.
So, Mr. Reasonable, what exactly is Flamebait about my post?
You mean, other than the whole "fox news gun nut crowd" baiting thing?
Couldn't tell ya.
Because being outed as gay is a negative?
Depends.
Live in northern CA? Probably no big deal. However, here in the Bible Belt, being outed can, will, and has in the past, cause a person to lose everything.
And, of course, there's seemingly no end to the stories of gay teens being outed at school, then killing themselves due to the subsequent abuse.
Also I am not using a photo for payment, Did I have to post the photo to use FB? no , i didnt, therefore it is not payment
Read the EULA - by agreeing to it, you are saying that you want a facebook account, and in exchange (i.e., payment), you will let them have universal rights to all media you post therein.
Granted, IANAL, but I don't think you have to be one to understand how slimeball capitalists operate.
sorry but legally you are wrong. If I take a photo of you, i am allowed to do whatever I want with it, including posting it on FB, 4chan etc. I can give it to a newspaper for free, I can even post it on a billboard for free. I may not agree with it however it is the law, how do you think paparazi get to do what they do? do you really think britney spears gave her ok to gawker or whoever to post up photos of her vagina? I doubt it.
That's not universally true - pictures taken in a public space, like a park or on a street, yes, you can "do what you want" like the paparazzi do - that's how they get away with vag shots on celebrities, by taking the picture from a public street or sidewalk.
However, if the photo is taken candidly, i.e. on private land, or any setting in which there is an expectation of privacy, then no, you do not have the right to "do whatever you want with it." If you want to test this, feel free to walk into the dressing room of any clothing retailer, snap a few pics, then post them online.
We'll see you in 5-10.
How exactly is your privacy "invaded" by having a photo of you tagged as you automatically instead of manually?
You mean, aside from the fact that:
- I never gave permission for my image to be placed online,
- I was never asked by either facebook or the person posting the image if I was OK with it,
- The photos that other people put up of you may show you in an unflattering light, or doing something illegal, or supporting/protesting a policy/organization that your employer would take issue with, and thus impact your personal and/or professional life (just ask Micheal Phelps about that one)
- the possibility that the algorithm isn't perfect, and thus may accidentally start tagging, say, all pictures of hypodermic needles (or something equally questionable) with my name?
Other than those things and probably several others that I haven't thought of yet, no, no privacy invasion at all...
Contrary to what the social network profiteers want you to think, celebrities are not the only people who have a right to decide how and where their image is used.
Such nonsense. That YOU can't search for some unknown face, doesn't mean some privileged few (perhaps with a National Security Letter in hand) can't search.
FTFY.
Warrants are sooo 2002.