Yes. They do. That is the final product. If you hired a guy to find a representative for you HE would be a middle man. But the legal representation is the final product. The lawyer is between you and the judge but that's not the type of "middle man" a publisher is. The service that connects you to a lawyer to represent you is a middle man. The lawyer is a skilled labourer. He does what you are not skilled enough to do yourself for you.
And you can design a marketing campaign for your new product yourself, you can write an operating system yourself*, you can make your own trampoline*, you can live entirely isolated from the rest of the world out in the woods should you so desire.
This does not make the people who perform these services "middle men". It makes them service providers. I'm not sure if you've checked lately, but there are a lot of laws. Like, just, stupid numbers of them. And they vary by region as small as city to city. Plus they're written in legalese (because layman's terms lead to arguments of the definition of the word "is" so they need specific legal words with set definitions) Yes, you CAN represent yourself and spend several hundred hours looking up the relevant laws, interpreting them, developing arguments and counter arguments, writing contracts and defending your point in court. But that doesn't mean that the people who offer to do those things for you are middle men. They're skilled laborers.
*well, no, YOU probably can't. But I'm sure someone can.
You mean when we invent artificial intelligence? (in before lawyer intelligence joke) Because lawyers aren't middle men. They are paid exclusively to research, think, debate, create documents and do other things that a computer can't. Lawyers aren't middle men in any way shape or form.
Bidding is entirely different. This isn't a company saying "send us all your portfolios of previous work, your time estimates and how much you charge and then we'll pick the one person to actually do the job" this is them saying "Do the job, send it to us, and we'll pick one person's version to actually use and then only pay them." The construction companies who are bidding don't have to each have to invest the time and resources to fully build a building in order to have their bid considered.
Nonono. The way I figure is, you need to make it bad enough to be completely useless but good enough to actually make it look like you're trying. IF they start getting flooded with Goatse they'll break out the IP bans. If the overall quality starts dropping and they have to sift through 50 shitty entries for each decent one every time the business model breaks down.
So a bad CEO only RARELY pulls 100 million? I don't think you're arguing against crowdsourcing his job very well. Shit, I'll run a company badly for 7 figures. I'd go so far as to say I'd do it for midway through 5.
Oh... that's... that's just evil. *grinch smile* that's is pure malevolent brilliance right there. I might suggest that to my friends in graphic design..
Piecework is basically bullshit. It's effectively hiring 10 people to do a job and then only paying one of them (at most). It's basically using the fact that they're "Contests" to stiff 99% of the people in the business.
On the other hand, the times are changing and you have to either adapt of die. You can't really rage against the fact that globalization increases competition.
If there's a tie then there has to be an unfair tiebreaker. These days it's usually whoever the HR guys likes more. Making it based on a brain scan is as valid (if not moreso) a method as based on who the HR guy personally relates to more readily.
My point is that calling "Gattaca" on this is a bit like calling "hitler" on Obama for advocating universal healthcare or on Bush for being generally more republican than one might like.
That doesn't work. The test would just show how predisposed to a certain skilset you are. If I spend 4 years getting a comp sci degree, have coop terms all with glowing reviews and a portfolio of projects I've done why would they care what my brain looks like? I have clear evidence that I can do the job.
It's like saying that because we have aptitude tests employers might start making all employees take them to see whether they can be hired. It doesn't happen.
It's POSSIBLE. But I didn't say the police should be arresting him. Didn't even say they should be detaining him. I said they should watch him because it's also possible he's about to commit a pretty violent crime.
I believe that if someone specifically says "we will start a lawsuit if the police try to get us to cooperate" somebody is going to find a way to abuse that.
More importantly though. I believe that morality needs to be balanced against liberty. Should the police be allowed to arrest you for what you say? No. Should they be accomadated if they try to track someone down who might be commiting a criminal offence? Yes.
Liberty and security are not a dichotomy. I would feel pretty damn insecure without any legal protection of my personal liberties but the ball swings both ways.
Yes. That was what I was implying. That people using an untraceable connection for potentially dangerous criminal activity was a bad thing and not awesome.
personally I also believe piracy should be illegal but I didn't want to distract everyone from the topic at hand by starting another IP law debate so I decided to just go with the stance that would be most likely to keep the discussion on topic.
So you're opposed to police patrolling the streets or monitoring suspicious targets? (Setting aside that american law officials tend to define suspicious as "brown" the general concept behind if someone is driving around with a few bags of fertilizer and some gasoline in the back of his car the police should probably follow him and find out what he's doing)
hmmm. How about intent. Saying you'll do it is reasonable suspicion to detain you and search your house and if they find a gun in your room or anything they can arrest you for intent.
No. As you have provided no actual argument other than saying you don't like me for unspecified reasons I still have no idea what your problem is. Well I assume you generally disagree with me on the topic of discussion but that's not all that helpful as to what specifically makes me either pathetic or a coward in your eyes.
I was going to make a real reply, but I can't think of one so I made an unfounded ad hominem attack instead and hoped nobody would notice the difference.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. They do. That is the final product. If you hired a guy to find a representative for you HE would be a middle man. But the legal representation is the final product. The lawyer is between you and the judge but that's not the type of "middle man" a publisher is. The service that connects you to a lawyer to represent you is a middle man. The lawyer is a skilled labourer. He does what you are not skilled enough to do yourself for you.
And you can design a marketing campaign for your new product yourself, you can write an operating system yourself*, you can make your own trampoline*, you can live entirely isolated from the rest of the world out in the woods should you so desire.
This does not make the people who perform these services "middle men". It makes them service providers. I'm not sure if you've checked lately, but there are a lot of laws. Like, just, stupid numbers of them. And they vary by region as small as city to city. Plus they're written in legalese (because layman's terms lead to arguments of the definition of the word "is" so they need specific legal words with set definitions) Yes, you CAN represent yourself and spend several hundred hours looking up the relevant laws, interpreting them, developing arguments and counter arguments, writing contracts and defending your point in court. But that doesn't mean that the people who offer to do those things for you are middle men. They're skilled laborers.
*well, no, YOU probably can't. But I'm sure someone can.
The irony that the book publishing model is less dated than than the music industry publishing model is staggering.
You mean when we invent artificial intelligence? (in before lawyer intelligence joke) Because lawyers aren't middle men. They are paid exclusively to research, think, debate, create documents and do other things that a computer can't. Lawyers aren't middle men in any way shape or form.
Bidding is entirely different. This isn't a company saying "send us all your portfolios of previous work, your time estimates and how much you charge and then we'll pick the one person to actually do the job" this is them saying "Do the job, send it to us, and we'll pick one person's version to actually use and then only pay them." The construction companies who are bidding don't have to each have to invest the time and resources to fully build a building in order to have their bid considered.
Nonono. The way I figure is, you need to make it bad enough to be completely useless but good enough to actually make it look like you're trying. IF they start getting flooded with Goatse they'll break out the IP bans. If the overall quality starts dropping and they have to sift through 50 shitty entries for each decent one every time the business model breaks down.
$99,999,999
So a bad CEO only RARELY pulls 100 million? I don't think you're arguing against crowdsourcing his job very well. Shit, I'll run a company badly for 7 figures. I'd go so far as to say I'd do it for midway through 5.
Oh... that's... that's just evil. *grinch smile* that's is pure malevolent brilliance right there. I might suggest that to my friends in graphic design..
Piecework is basically bullshit. It's effectively hiring 10 people to do a job and then only paying one of them (at most). It's basically using the fact that they're "Contests" to stiff 99% of the people in the business.
On the other hand, the times are changing and you have to either adapt of die. You can't really rage against the fact that globalization increases competition.
If there's a tie then there has to be an unfair tiebreaker. These days it's usually whoever the HR guys likes more. Making it based on a brain scan is as valid (if not moreso) a method as based on who the HR guy personally relates to more readily.
My point is that calling "Gattaca" on this is a bit like calling "hitler" on Obama for advocating universal healthcare or on Bush for being generally more republican than one might like.
That doesn't work. The test would just show how predisposed to a certain skilset you are. If I spend 4 years getting a comp sci degree, have coop terms all with glowing reviews and a portfolio of projects I've done why would they care what my brain looks like? I have clear evidence that I can do the job.
It's like saying that because we have aptitude tests employers might start making all employees take them to see whether they can be hired. It doesn't happen.
Don't even have to go as far as Europe. I did an apprenticeship in high school and I live in Candada.
Wait. Are you telling me people who make laws usually have law degrees? because that just seems flat out unlikely to me.
I didn't say "which isn't awesome." I said "which IS awesome until..."
It's POSSIBLE. But I didn't say the police should be arresting him. Didn't even say they should be detaining him. I said they should watch him because it's also possible he's about to commit a pretty violent crime.
I believe that if someone specifically says "we will start a lawsuit if the police try to get us to cooperate" somebody is going to find a way to abuse that.
More importantly though. I believe that morality needs to be balanced against liberty. Should the police be allowed to arrest you for what you say?
No.
Should they be accomadated if they try to track someone down who might be commiting a criminal offence?
Yes.
Liberty and security are not a dichotomy. I would feel pretty damn insecure without any legal protection of my personal liberties but the ball swings both ways.
The article says that if the law officials ask for information they'll start a lawsuit in protest.
Yes. That was what I was implying. That people using an untraceable connection for potentially dangerous criminal activity was a bad thing and not awesome.
personally I also believe piracy should be illegal but I didn't want to distract everyone from the topic at hand by starting another IP law debate so I decided to just go with the stance that would be most likely to keep the discussion on topic.
So you're opposed to police patrolling the streets or monitoring suspicious targets? (Setting aside that american law officials tend to define suspicious as "brown" the general concept behind if someone is driving around with a few bags of fertilizer and some gasoline in the back of his car the police should probably follow him and find out what he's doing)
hmmm. How about intent. Saying you'll do it is reasonable suspicion to detain you and search your house and if they find a gun in your room or anything they can arrest you for intent.
No. As you have provided no actual argument other than saying you don't like me for unspecified reasons I still have no idea what your problem is. Well I assume you generally disagree with me on the topic of discussion but that's not all that helpful as to what specifically makes me either pathetic or a coward in your eyes.
That would be fine. But the article seems to suggest they won't and if they try they'll sue.
Citation provided Conspiracy law is pretty standard fare.
I was going to make a real reply, but I can't think of one so I made an unfounded ad hominem attack instead and hoped nobody would notice the difference.
fixed that for you.