1) The company/boss is rational. They will work with you to find terms that are acceptable to you, but they want their lawyer to approve it. (which results in the same as 2)
2) The company/Boss is a lawyer, and they have this mindset that every contract should be completely and totally in the favor of their client, and any concessions left to others are possible lawsuits for not looking after their clients interests. I've had the case where a lawyer who was also CEO of the company wanted to change the agreements mid-stream and sat there and plainly told me that what I was quoting from her words didnt' say what it clearly said. Needless to say, a company with such low morals isn't worth my time. But instead of leaving, we just refused to sign. "Our current agreement gives you enough rights". (I will not concede rights to anything developed not-for-the-company.) They didn't fire us as they were implying they would, though some of the employees did sign, those of us who didn't kept our jobs. Later, though, I removed my services from the company-- why spend time with unethical people?
I think proposing a percentage is a good idea. One of the things I usually do, because the lawyers are so intractible on this issue, is that when they ask for you to list all previous inventions, and all inventions outside the scope of the agreement, I make that list so broad that it covers everything I might possibly do for the company. Apparently the lawyers don't read that list or understand it, cause I've never had one balk at it-- they seem more concerned about getting their agreement and boilerplate signed as written than exploring the fact that its allowance for inventions outside the scope of the agreement is a big gaping hole that you can drive anything thru.
Lawyers ARE the problem, and everyone should refuse to sign draconian agreements.
But don't overlook the possibility that the agreement has a clause that allows it to be modified in such a way that it is acceptable to you.
If course in your little fear mongering mind that would be the "most common scenario".
But in reality, if a company isn't going to makret it they will often sell it to you. If they didn't have a use for it, they wouldn't have spent 5 years working on it. Etc. etc. etc.
Hell, if they didn't want to market it they wouldn't have gone thru the time and expense of patenting it, and you could have quit and walked out with your mind without them really having much of a claim at all.
I understand that people don't understand business, but why post something that is so blatantly wrong and insist its the most common scenario?
Either you've read it as well, and so it applies to you.
Or you haven't and you're bashing a book you have never read!
If you'd read it, you'd know it wasn't a waste because as far as intellectual books go, its at the top of the heap. Hell, in the category of moral philosophies, only the bible is read more and discussed more.
And if you haven't read it, you're just another anti-intellectual bed wetter.
Yeah a book about a strike of geeks is not relevant to this discussion.
Anyone who tells you not to read atlas shrugged is, by definition, someone who wants to eliminate human rights. Unless they are giving you an alternative book that explains the same things Atlas Shrugged does.
The reason there is so much opposition to Atlas Shrugged is that it tells you that you have the right to be free, and it shows you just how you can be free.
But there are a lot of oppressors- those who have internally oppressed themselves and those who want to oppress others who hate the idea of freedom.
And so they will poo poo atlas shrugged every chance they get.
You should read it (and I mean, really read it, all the way thru) if you have an open mind. Then you can give a better answer than "no no, don't read that book!"
So far, nobody has taken up my challenge to read atlas shrugged and tell me logically what is wrong with it-- everyone who has tried has ended up agreeing with it.
Ostensibly compensates them? Sheesh. Every situation I've been in where we patented something (eg a couple times) its been known upfront what the compensation bonus was for delivering a patent. And I don't know anybody who takes a job without knowing what they are getting paid.
So if you're actually saying these people thought they would get rewarded and weren't, you're going to have to do more the make the case than that. At the very least a company that puts up the money and research that leads to the patent deserves ownership of it, and if someone made EXPLICIT AGREEMENT that those were the terms of employment, then they don't have much cause to bitch.
Its not like someone with a great idea who needs a little seed money can't get it.
sold their souls to the SEC, the IRS, and a zillion lawyers
What is this kind of crap? Selling your soul? You guys hate companies so much that you think they are necessarily evil? Isn't that quite stupid? Who taught you that? I find it ironic that liberals whine and whine about rich people and then hate and whine about companies and say that anyone who starts a company sells their soul. So, what, you WANT to be poor? Cause obviously anyone who makes money is evil, anyone who started a company is soulless... but then, why complain that they got rich? Why try to take all that money away, that they worked hard for? OH, I know, you WANT SOMETHING FOR NOTHING.
You don't need to even deal with the SEC unless you go public, and at that its for protection of the people buying your stock. Lawyers may be soulless but there are some genuinly well intentioned ones out there. You certainly don't have to give up your moral integrity to them, the IRS or the SEC to start a company. ARe you really that clueless about how business works in this country?
Oh, and whats abusive about intellectual property laws? That its protected? Oh, that's right, you dont' want to pay for something you didn't invent-- you want somethign for nothing!
Which is quite IRNONIC given that the topic of your post is how this guy isn't getting compensated for the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY he created.
"Nobody understands me. I do all the work in this company. I don't get paid enough. I know my boss gets paid more,and he's incompetent".
It doesn't take a union to control your own life. A union is what you turn to when you abdicate control over your own life because you're too weak and you fall prey to the local mafia thug (eg: local 217).
Especially in the tech industry, where people are paid well, employment is generally good, and employees are given lots of perks. There are fewer jobs, but the fooseball table is still there,and I've not heard of many companies instituting uniforms or dress codes.
Oh, poor you, you don't understand what Marketing, Finance, Sales, and Management people do, so you assume they do no useful work whatsoever. Tough titties. Either learn enough about business to see why they are getting paid more than you....(if they are. I once worked with a VP of marketing that was getting paid less then me, and it hasn't been uncommon for CEOs I work for to be getting paid less than me- usually the CEOs take compensation in stock and are thus incurring significant risk in the process-- and on average that risk has only broken even.) Or shut up and remain a bedwetter.
But the last thing you need is to bring the local goons into the mix.
I will never support a union for tech workers affiliated with any of the big unions (and they always are.)
And I will make it clear to any employer that I refuse to be represented by a union-- that is if I ever go work for anyone again.
And I will not tolerate unionizing of my employees. IF they are unhappy they can bring their issues to me. If they are unable to understand why things are the way they are, and they want to bring violence and force to bear (Which is what a unions is for) then they should seek employment elsewhere.
Collective bargaining is 4 or 5 employees coming to me and telling me that they'd rather have a fooseball table than the pacman machine we'd talked about getting. Of course I'm going to listen to that.
Collective bargaining is employees telling me that they'd rather take stock than cash, and of course I'd look into that (there are legal issues with it.)
Or that the parking situation seems unfair, or that they think marketing set a poor date for release or any of the dozens of issues that come up in a company every month that have to be worked on, fixed, or explained.
Unionization is when some guy who does not work for the company,does not know what the company does, or its state of affairs, comes in and demands that I give him control of the company, or he will shut the company down. Unions are an agent of violence force and extortion.
The only reasonable response to such a threat is to tell them to piss off and to never enter your property again. Then go tell the employees that you are willing to listen to employee issues but you will not deal with terrorists and thugs. That any union employee is free to leave that day and never return and that you'll be happy to replace them with people with enough horse sense to come to you and work out the issues or understanding of the way business works and economic realities. Who needs employees who don't know business and want to bring in thugs to get something for nothing? Hell, if they are already thinking like that they are not part of the team and are not pulling their weight. They are deadweight to begin with.
The idea that business doesn't know the value of tech people is idiotic. Sure, a few don't, but they are not doing well-- we just had a boom in bonuses and a feeding frenzy over tech employees. Now that the market has changed they haven't forgotten tech workers value, they just have more to choose from and competition is different.
Generally, employers in the US compensate tech workers very well.
Anyone in this day and age saying that tech workers need to organize is someone who wants something for nothing.
If you're a tech worker in this country and you have a job, odds are very good that you're being well and fully compensated.
Last thing scientists/engineers need is to bring a union in.
Unions are great in theory, but in modern days they've turned into a protection racket.
"I think you'd better be giving me %15 of your income, see, or you won't be having a job, see".
Its not like the days when Jimmy Hoffa would go around firebombing places that didn't join his union, but its not much better.
Collective bargaining is good for employees- its a human right. But unions in this country have taken over that right and actually remove rights for employees. Now we have the government getting involved and taking people's rights away and giving them to unions. I'm not just talking about companies rights, but employees rights.
An example: A father of three, with a wife to support as well, was fired from his job because he wasn't able to pay union dues. Not because he was doing a good job, but because the union had a monopoly on the employement for that company and they were not allowed to hire anyone who wasn't union. Talk about extortion, and a violation of both his rights and his employers rights. You have a right to work and a third party doesn't have a right to prevent you from entering into an agreement with an employer. IF the union isn't providing enough of a service to get people to join it voluntarily, then they shouldn't be allowed.
Course union idiots always say" they have to join because why should they be allowed to benefit from the work we did before?" Yeah, sure, as if YOU were the ones that created the job.
BTW, the average scientist in this country makes at least twice what the average MBA does. Typical fear mondering on your part there.
Hey, I just asked you to put your money where your mouth was.
How can you advocate the armed robbery of everybody in this country because some people are poor? Even the poor people are robbed in your plan.
A better solution would be to support charities, and eliminate the forced extraction of wealth from a class of people who's sole characteristic is that they were successful- and thus hated.
Aw, days of insults from you and when I return in kind you just can handle it. Sheesh.
Don't dish it out if you can't take it.
AIRPORTS ARE NOT PRIVATE. Get at least that thru your thick head, dipshit.
SEA- seattle port authority http://www.portseattle.org/seatac/default.htm
One of the largest airports in the country, Ohare, owned by the city of chicago: http://www.ohare.com/
Denver international airport: http://www.flydenver.com/guide/facility/ index.asp City and County of Denver, Department of Aviation
First three airports I tried to find the homepage for, all three owned by the local municipality.
I can handle that you didn't know this. So many bedwetters don't. They think companies own everything.
But three days of insisting that I'm an ignorant fool when its so fucking easy to check it out... sheesh.
Nevermind that your contract is with the airline, not the fucking airport. Nevermidn that the airlines want their pilots to be able to go thru without going thu security BUT ARE PREVENTED BY THE FEDS.
Nevermind that this information is at your fingertips and I pointed it out to you-- - you just ignore it and insist that the only airports owned by government are air force bases.
laws to help the rich get richer, faster, at the direct expense of the masses.
Of course, in this country a tax cut that cuts the taxes on the poor by %50 and the taxes on the rich by %2 is considered exactly that kind of law. At least, thats what the liberals said about the republicans tax cut, that did EXACTLY THAT.
Funny with all this concern about the poor, you'd think you'd want their taxes cut.
"Free trade" generally only helps the larger nation, and keeps the poorer one poor. So I cannot blame the Saudis for nationalizing their oil fields (though I do not know the situation that well). I will not defend the Saudi's too far though because a handful of Saudi princes have become absurdly wealthy off selling US oil, while oppressing the rest of the country.
Those are not unrelated situations. IF the country wanted control of its resources (which it had without nationalizing them) then it didn't need to enter into the agreements.
What it wanted-- what all liberals who support this type of crime want-- is something for nothing. IT wanted them developed by others so they could benefit from it.
And in one breath you applaud this behaviour and then in the other you point out that the despots get all the money while their populace gets nothing.
Funny, if it were a free trade situation the poor people would have jobs, and a better life. But you oppose free trade so we get the Saudi situation, the Iraq situation, etc.
BTW- the US didn't create the coup in venezuala, it just didn't condemn it *FAST ENOUGH*. Sheesh, what a misrepresentation.
LiBSDnuxFree will be the dominant commercial Unix. Everybody in unix is sharing code like some big frat party in the land of loose women.
Open Source has changed the rules of the game in this respect.
OS X, probably the highest volume commercial license out there will continue for the next decade, and all the variants that currently exist will continue to exist-- in name only if they're proprietary-- and in caode and many more flavors if they aren't.
Operating systems are becoming pretty much a branding opportunity. How much of Solaris and OS X are in common? At the OS level, a fair bit.
So, everyone keeps current, everyone shares code, everyone keeps their "proprietary" brand and sells their stuff, plus whatever value add they bring to the table.
The real question is how long does Windows have to live? Probably the next ten years for sure, but forever?
Really, with OS X its become Microsoft on one side and everyone else on the other... and there are more smart people combined working on/for Red Hat, Apple, IBM, Sun, HP, Debian/Linux, FSF, and all the others I'm sure someone will remind me of.
No matter how many people MS hires, most of the brains won't work for them.
Sure, there will be variations, but not in what's important. For instance, say the Debian project comes up with a killer filesystem that nobody else has, and its open source (of course) then when it becomes a competitive advantage for Debian, Apple will adopt it, IBM will adopt it, Sun will adopt it. Suddenly, not just Debian is working on this filesystem, everyone is. (You can switch any of those players for Debian. IF apple came up with the new killer filesystem, then everyone would eventually support it because Darwin is open sourced. Its only a matter of time, and the fact that it isn't compelling, that Linux (for instance) doesn't support HFS+ better than it does.
So, with everyone united behind the OS Unix codebase, they will keep selling their brands and their value adds, but all the competitive advantage will be shared. And united against Microsoft.
In a way, all of them have gone away as commercial unixes, and in a way, all of them are thriving.
Apple's VM tracks sun fairly closely... but they also have a lot of optimization that they do beyond what sun ships. Thus, Apple's releases will not coincide with Suns. And this is a Good Thing.
Its not like not using 1.4 is bad-- 1.4 is a minor update, and anyone developing java software right now really should not be requiring 1.4.
Furthermore, Apples 1.4 will likely be out soon, and will likely, once again, be the best VM on the market.
You should be happy he's leaving windows, rather than let your ego flame him for choosing mac.
Microsoft clears a billion dollars a year in profits from their mac division. At least that was the case way back in 1997. I assume that its only gone up, not down, since then.
Its not "built in". It doesnt' stop me from ripping the matrix (every day, over an over, actually) or copying MS Office to an external drive, etc.
For DRM to work over Firewire the FW device would have to support it.
An example is one of the DV bridges I'm working wiht will give me funky colors when I rip the matrix-- it detects the Macrovision encoding and then mucks with the chroma in the *digital* version.
I was going to say something about how you should actually talk to some libertarians...
But then I realized that yeah, I hate anyone who advocates putting a gun to my head.
I hate anyone who says I should be their slave.
I hate anyone who says that two men can't marry, or that a guy and two girls (or a girl and two guys) can't live together.
I hate anyone who thinks that I should not be allowed to be secure in my life and in my house from unreasonable search, seizure.
I hate anyone who says I cannot hire someone, merely because of the color of their skin, or because of their religious ideology.
I hate anyone who says I MUST hire someone, merely because of the color of their skin, or because of their religious ideology.
I hate anyone who says that I have to give half of my money to them, at gunpoint, and while I'm at it I have to collect a third of my employees money for them.
I hate anyone who expects me to work for them without compensation.
And since the Liberal, Conservative, Democratic and Republican movements ALL subscribe to ALL of those ideas, then, yes, I guess in a sense I hate them.
But usually I see them as misguided-- if only they'd see the light and support human rights, it would be that much easier for me to exercise my human rights.
So hate isn't the right word-- I'd defend with force and my life and my rights, but those who merely talk about taking them away, I don't have hate for. Just pity.
The libertarian movement is made up of three groups.
1) The kooks that every third party gets almost by default for being "non mainstream" enough. A small proportion. 2) Ex-Repubulicans who realized that the republican party doesn't really support liberty (even economic) like they say. And a few hardline ex republicans who think the republican party doesn't go far enough in cutting taxes and spending. 3) Ex liberals who were liberals because they believed in free choice, human rights, and all that but who recornized that the democratic party opposes all of these things. Who realized that alle the "anit-corporate" and rich bashing was a form of hate speech, and that if you really want free choice, then that includes not just the choice to be a home maker, or marry who you want, but to work where you want and to keep your money. (Yes. I'm a member of this group.) 3) Anarchists. There are anarchists who share only the description with the 1334 idiots on college campuses who just really wanted a cooler way to say "slacker". These types have noticed that every government is corrupt and that the smaller the government, necessarily the more free the people, and so they have thought a lot about just how small you can make a government and have a safe free society. They tend to get into lots of arguments with the ex republicans and democrats. 4) Objectivism. Because Objectivism is a philosophy that has libertarianism as its political component, all Objectivists are Libertarians. (Unfortunately, there are a lot of "objectivists" who actually aren't objectivists, and are really 1334 slackers who wanted a cooler name. This includes the Ayn Rand Institute.)
The biggest problem in the libertarian party is that since they draw from so many groups the groups spend too much time noticing that they came from different places and not enough time going to the people in the groups they left and pointing out to them how their groups are failing them.
Personally, I lean to a parliamentarian government. But I don't think that would solve the problem of liberty in the US. The problem of liberty in the US will not be solved until a majority of people in this country realize that: 1) There are human rights. 2) Human rights are worth fighting for. 3) If you believe in human rights, you will take up arms to defend them.
Since we have most people convinced by the two major parties that 1 is false, we don't even have the bill of rights anymore. So, we're a long way from liberty.
What do you expect from slashdot?/. is a collection of people who go on and on about "freedom" and "free" yet violently oppose the party that actually advocates liberty.
Thats why I call gnu "Free as in totalitarian"... in this crowd when they say "Free" they're talking about such bastions of "freedom" as stalin, marx and lenin.
Mention that someone made some money in the 90s and you get pages and pages about how they should be propping up dictatorships in east africa by sending them food to withhold from the starving in their country because "we all should care for each other, especially care for those nice brutal dictators that work so hard to keep people oppressed."
You'd think people running linux would be libertarian, or would at least understand libertarianism. But you'd be wrong.
Maybe not YET. But if this situation were to hold, I'd be happy that there was at least some freedom.
But not surprised at the blatant hypocrisy of it. Its a lot easier to learn to fly a small jet than a jumbo jet. A lot easier to charter said jet than a hijack a jumbo jet, etc. etc.
Would be typical misguided bullshit "Security" to hassle people and maybe make some drug busts in the interests of perceived, rather than actual, security.
Slashdot Mirror
I've run into two situations:
1) The company/boss is rational. They will work with you to find terms that are acceptable to you, but they want their lawyer to approve it. (which results in the same as 2)
2) The company/Boss is a lawyer, and they have this mindset that every contract should be completely and totally in the favor of their client, and any concessions left to others are possible lawsuits for not looking after their clients interests. I've had the case where a lawyer who was also CEO of the company wanted to change the agreements mid-stream and sat there and plainly told me that what I was quoting from her words didnt' say what it clearly said. Needless to say, a company with such low morals isn't worth my time. But instead of leaving, we just refused to sign. "Our current agreement gives you enough rights". (I will not concede rights to anything developed not-for-the-company.) They didn't fire us as they were implying they would, though some of the employees did sign, those of us who didn't kept our jobs. Later, though, I removed my services from the company-- why spend time with unethical people?
I think proposing a percentage is a good idea. One of the things I usually do, because the lawyers are so intractible on this issue, is that when they ask for you to list all previous inventions, and all inventions outside the scope of the agreement, I make that list so broad that it covers everything I might possibly do for the company. Apparently the lawyers don't read that list or understand it, cause I've never had one balk at it-- they seem more concerned about getting their agreement and boilerplate signed as written than exploring the fact that its allowance for inventions outside the scope of the agreement is a big gaping hole that you can drive anything thru.
Lawyers ARE the problem, and everyone should refuse to sign draconian agreements.
But don't overlook the possibility that the agreement has a clause that allows it to be modified in such a way that it is acceptable to you.
Yet they are clearly smarter than you. Imagine that.
You should try getting an MBA sometime. I'm an engineer and I've gone thru the college textbooks my father has from when he got his.
You'd learn a lot about business and you might get rid of some of these stupid childish notions, such as the idea that MBAs are valueless exploiters.
IF you don't want to be exploited, don't agree to the terms. IF you do, you got NO RIGTH TO BITCH.
Course, we know you're just bitching, you never have been exploited.
If course in your little fear mongering mind that would be the "most common scenario".
But in reality, if a company isn't going to makret it they will often sell it to you. If they didn't have a use for it, they wouldn't have spent 5 years working on it. Etc. etc. etc.
Hell, if they didn't want to market it they wouldn't have gone thru the time and expense of patenting it, and you could have quit and walked out with your mind without them really having much of a claim at all.
I understand that people don't understand business, but why post something that is so blatantly wrong and insist its the most common scenario?
So sad. So many hours of your life wasted.
Which is a hilarious comment.
Either you've read it as well, and so it applies to you.
Or you haven't and you're bashing a book you have never read!
If you'd read it, you'd know it wasn't a waste because as far as intellectual books go, its at the top of the heap. Hell, in the category of moral philosophies, only the bible is read more and discussed more.
And if you haven't read it, you're just another anti-intellectual bed wetter.
Yeah a book about a strike of geeks is not relevant to this discussion.
Anyone who tells you not to read atlas shrugged is, by definition, someone who wants to eliminate human rights. Unless they are giving you an alternative book that explains the same things Atlas Shrugged does.
The reason there is so much opposition to Atlas Shrugged is that it tells you that you have the right to be free, and it shows you just how you can be free.
But there are a lot of oppressors- those who have internally oppressed themselves and those who want to oppress others who hate the idea of freedom.
And so they will poo poo atlas shrugged every chance they get.
You should read it (and I mean, really read it, all the way thru) if you have an open mind. Then you can give a better answer than "no no, don't read that book!"
So far, nobody has taken up my challenge to read atlas shrugged and tell me logically what is wrong with it-- everyone who has tried has ended up agreeing with it.
Ostensibly compensates them? Sheesh. Every situation I've been in where we patented something (eg a couple times) its been known upfront what the compensation bonus was for delivering a patent. And I don't know anybody who takes a job without knowing what they are getting paid.
So if you're actually saying these people thought they would get rewarded and weren't, you're going to have to do more the make the case than that. At the very least a company that puts up the money and research that leads to the patent deserves ownership of it, and if someone made EXPLICIT AGREEMENT that those were the terms of employment, then they don't have much cause to bitch.
Its not like someone with a great idea who needs a little seed money can't get it.
sold their souls to the SEC, the IRS, and a zillion lawyers
What is this kind of crap? Selling your soul? You guys hate companies so much that you think they are necessarily evil? Isn't that quite stupid? Who taught you that? I find it ironic that liberals whine and whine about rich people and then hate and whine about companies and say that anyone who starts a company sells their soul. So, what, you WANT to be poor? Cause obviously anyone who makes money is evil, anyone who started a company is soulless... but then, why complain that they got rich? Why try to take all that money away, that they worked hard for? OH, I know, you WANT SOMETHING FOR NOTHING.
You don't need to even deal with the SEC unless you go public, and at that its for protection of the people buying your stock. Lawyers may be soulless but there are some genuinly well intentioned ones out there. You certainly don't have to give up your moral integrity to them, the IRS or the SEC to start a company. ARe you really that clueless about how business works in this country?
Oh, and whats abusive about intellectual property laws? That its protected? Oh, that's right, you dont' want to pay for something you didn't invent-- you want somethign for nothing!
Which is quite IRNONIC given that the topic of your post is how this guy isn't getting compensated for the INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY he created.
You want it both ways. Not surprising.
No useful work whatsoever,
,and I've not heard of many companies instituting uniforms or dress codes.
,does not know what the company does, or its state of affairs, comes in and demands that I give him control of the company, or he will shut the company down. Unions are an agent of violence force and extortion.
This is the standard liberal bogeyman.
"Nobody understands me. I do all the work in this company. I don't get paid enough. I know my boss gets paid more,and he's incompetent".
It doesn't take a union to control your own life. A union is what you turn to when you abdicate control over your own life because you're too weak and you fall prey to the local mafia thug (eg: local 217).
Especially in the tech industry, where people are paid well, employment is generally good, and employees are given lots of perks. There are fewer jobs, but the fooseball table is still there
Oh, poor you, you don't understand what Marketing, Finance, Sales, and Management people do, so you assume they do no useful work whatsoever. Tough titties. Either learn enough about business to see why they are getting paid more than you....(if they are. I once worked with a VP of marketing that was getting paid less then me, and it hasn't been uncommon for CEOs I work for to be getting paid less than me- usually the CEOs take compensation in stock and are thus incurring significant risk in the process-- and on average that risk has only broken even.) Or shut up and remain a bedwetter.
But the last thing you need is to bring the local goons into the mix.
I will never support a union for tech workers affiliated with any of the big unions (and they always are.)
And I will make it clear to any employer that I refuse to be represented by a union-- that is if I ever go work for anyone again.
And I will not tolerate unionizing of my employees. IF they are unhappy they can bring their issues to me. If they are unable to understand why things are the way they are, and they want to bring violence and force to bear (Which is what a unions is for) then they should seek employment elsewhere.
Collective bargaining is 4 or 5 employees coming to me and telling me that they'd rather have a fooseball table than the pacman machine we'd talked about getting. Of course I'm going to listen to that.
Collective bargaining is employees telling me that they'd rather take stock than cash, and of course I'd look into that (there are legal issues with it.)
Or that the parking situation seems unfair, or that they think marketing set a poor date for release or any of the dozens of issues that come up in a company every month that have to be worked on, fixed, or explained.
Unionization is when some guy who does not work for the company
The only reasonable response to such a threat is to tell them to piss off and to never enter your property again. Then go tell the employees that you are willing to listen to employee issues but you will not deal with terrorists and thugs. That any union employee is free to leave that day and never return and that you'll be happy to replace them with people with enough horse sense to come to you and work out the issues or understanding of the way business works and economic realities. Who needs employees who don't know business and want to bring in thugs to get something for nothing? Hell, if they are already thinking like that they are not part of the team and are not pulling their weight. They are deadweight to begin with.
The idea that business doesn't know the value of tech people is idiotic. Sure, a few don't, but they are not doing well-- we just had a boom in bonuses and a feeding frenzy over tech employees. Now that the market has changed they haven't forgotten tech workers value, they just have more to choose from and competition is different.
Generally, employers in the US compensate tech workers very well.
Anyone in this day and age saying that tech workers need to organize is someone who wants something for nothing.
If you're a tech worker in this country and you have a job, odds are very good that you're being well and fully compensated.
Last thing scientists/engineers need is to bring a union in.
Unions are great in theory, but in modern days they've turned into a protection racket.
"I think you'd better be giving me %15 of your income, see, or you won't be having a job, see".
Its not like the days when Jimmy Hoffa would go around firebombing places that didn't join his union, but its not much better.
Collective bargaining is good for employees- its a human right. But unions in this country have taken over that right and actually remove rights for employees. Now we have the government getting involved and taking people's rights away and giving them to unions. I'm not just talking about companies rights, but employees rights.
An example: A father of three, with a wife to support as well, was fired from his job because he wasn't able to pay union dues. Not because he was doing a good job, but because the union had a monopoly on the employement for that company and they were not allowed to hire anyone who wasn't union. Talk about extortion, and a violation of both his rights and his employers rights. You have a right to work and a third party doesn't have a right to prevent you from entering into an agreement with an employer. IF the union isn't providing enough of a service to get people to join it voluntarily, then they shouldn't be allowed.
Course union idiots always say" they have to join because why should they be allowed to benefit from the work we did before?" Yeah, sure, as if YOU were the ones that created the job.
BTW, the average scientist in this country makes at least twice what the average MBA does. Typical fear mondering on your part there.
Ducky? What does that mean? Silly? Peachy?
Scare-de-cats?
Hey, I just asked you to put your money where your mouth was.
How can you advocate the armed robbery of everybody in this country because some people are poor? Even the poor people are robbed in your plan.
A better solution would be to support charities, and eliminate the forced extraction of wealth from a class of people who's sole characteristic is that they were successful- and thus hated.
Aw, days of insults from you and when I return in kind you just can handle it. Sheesh.
Don't dish it out if you can't take it.
AIRPORTS ARE NOT PRIVATE. Get at least that thru your thick head, dipshit.
SEA- seattle port authority http://www.portseattle.org/seatac/default.htm
One of the largest airports in the country, Ohare, owned by the city of chicago: http://www.ohare.com/
Denver international airport:
http://www.flydenver.com/guide/facility
City and County of Denver, Department of Aviation
First three airports I tried to find the homepage for, all three owned by the local municipality.
I can handle that you didn't know this. So many bedwetters don't. They think companies own everything.
But three days of insisting that I'm an ignorant fool when its so fucking easy to check it out... sheesh.
Nevermind that your contract is with the airline, not the fucking airport. Nevermidn that the airlines want their pilots to be able to go thru without going thu security BUT ARE PREVENTED BY THE FEDS.
Nevermind that this information is at your fingertips and I pointed it out to you-- - you just ignore it and insist that the only airports owned by government are air force bases.
What a stupid ignorant fool you are.
No wonder you oppose the bill of rights.
Denial of reality on your part is not ignorance on my part.
Hating the rich is a time honored tradition in this country by those too lazy to get rich themselves.
laws to help the rich get richer, faster, at the direct expense of the masses.
Of course, in this country a tax cut that cuts the taxes on the poor by %50 and the taxes on the rich by %2 is considered exactly that kind of law. At least, thats what the liberals said about the republicans tax cut, that did EXACTLY THAT.
Funny with all this concern about the poor, you'd think you'd want their taxes cut.
"Free trade" generally only helps the larger nation, and keeps the poorer one poor. So I cannot blame the Saudis for nationalizing their oil fields (though I do not know the situation that well). I will not defend the Saudi's too far though because a handful of Saudi princes have become absurdly wealthy off selling US oil, while oppressing the rest of the country.
Those are not unrelated situations. IF the country wanted control of its resources (which it had without nationalizing them) then it didn't need to enter into the agreements.
What it wanted-- what all liberals who support this type of crime want-- is something for nothing. IT wanted them developed by others so they could benefit from it.
And in one breath you applaud this behaviour and then in the other you point out that the despots get all the money while their populace gets nothing.
Funny, if it were a free trade situation the poor people would have jobs, and a better life. But you oppose free trade so we get the Saudi situation, the Iraq situation, etc.
BTW- the US didn't create the coup in venezuala, it just didn't condemn it *FAST ENOUGH*. Sheesh, what a misrepresentation.
LiBSDnuxFree will be the dominant commercial Unix.
Everybody in unix is sharing code like some big frat party in the land of loose women.
Open Source has changed the rules of the game in this respect.
OS X, probably the highest volume commercial license out there will continue for the next decade, and all the variants that currently exist will continue to exist-- in name only if they're proprietary-- and in caode and many more flavors if they aren't.
Operating systems are becoming pretty much a branding opportunity. How much of Solaris and OS X are in common? At the OS level, a fair bit.
So, everyone keeps current, everyone shares code, everyone keeps their "proprietary" brand and sells their stuff, plus whatever value add they bring to the table.
The real question is how long does Windows have to live? Probably the next ten years for sure, but forever?
Really, with OS X its become Microsoft on one side and everyone else on the other... and there are more smart people combined working on/for Red Hat, Apple, IBM, Sun, HP, Debian/Linux, FSF, and all the others I'm sure someone will remind me of.
No matter how many people MS hires, most of the brains won't work for them.
Sure, there will be variations, but not in what's important. For instance, say the Debian project comes up with a killer filesystem that nobody else has, and its open source (of course) then when it becomes a competitive advantage for Debian, Apple will adopt it, IBM will adopt it, Sun will adopt it. Suddenly, not just Debian is working on this filesystem, everyone is. (You can switch any of those players for Debian. IF apple came up with the new killer filesystem, then everyone would eventually support it because Darwin is open sourced. Its only a matter of time, and the fact that it isn't compelling, that Linux (for instance) doesn't support HFS+ better than it does.
So, with everyone united behind the OS Unix codebase, they will keep selling their brands and their value adds, but all the competitive advantage will be shared. And united against Microsoft.
In a way, all of them have gone away as commercial unixes, and in a way, all of them are thriving.
The only ego here is yours.
Apple's VM tracks sun fairly closely... but they also have a lot of optimization that they do beyond what sun ships. Thus, Apple's releases will not coincide with Suns. And this is a Good Thing.
Its not like not using 1.4 is bad-- 1.4 is a minor update, and anyone developing java software right now really should not be requiring 1.4.
Furthermore, Apples 1.4 will likely be out soon, and will likely, once again, be the best VM on the market.
You should be happy he's leaving windows, rather than let your ego flame him for choosing mac.
Microsoft clears a billion dollars a year in profits from their mac division. At least that was the case way back in 1997. I assume that its only gone up, not down, since then.
Firewire SUPPORTS copy protection.
Its not "built in". It doesnt' stop me from ripping the matrix (every day, over an over, actually) or copying MS Office to an external drive, etc.
For DRM to work over Firewire the FW device would have to support it.
An example is one of the DV bridges I'm working wiht will give me funky colors when I rip the matrix-- it detects the Macrovision encoding and then mucks with the chroma in the *digital* version.
Which is ironic, given that the Souther Poverty Law Center *IS* a hate site!
Its just hatred of the rich, though, so its politically correct.
Fraud is currently illegal.
I've yet to see a libertarian advocate for fraud being legalized.
Somehow, I suspect what you're talking about wasn't fraud, but something else.
Fraud is just a nicer word for you to use, makes you sound more rational doesn't it?
I was going to say something about how you should actually talk to some libertarians...
But then I realized that yeah, I hate anyone who advocates putting a gun to my head.
I hate anyone who says I should be their slave.
I hate anyone who says that two men can't marry, or that a guy and two girls (or a girl and two guys) can't live together.
I hate anyone who thinks that I should not be allowed to be secure in my life and in my house from unreasonable search, seizure.
I hate anyone who says I cannot hire someone, merely because of the color of their skin, or because of their religious ideology.
I hate anyone who says I MUST hire someone, merely because of the color of their skin, or because of their religious ideology.
I hate anyone who says that I have to give half of my money to them, at gunpoint, and while I'm at it I have to collect a third of my employees money for them.
I hate anyone who expects me to work for them without compensation.
And since the Liberal, Conservative, Democratic and Republican movements ALL subscribe to ALL of those ideas, then, yes, I guess in a sense I hate them.
But usually I see them as misguided-- if only they'd see the light and support human rights, it would be that much easier for me to exercise my human rights.
So hate isn't the right word-- I'd defend with force and my life and my rights, but those who merely talk about taking them away, I don't have hate for. Just pity.
The libertarian movement is made up of three groups.
1) The kooks that every third party gets almost by default for being "non mainstream" enough. A small proportion.
2) Ex-Repubulicans who realized that the republican party doesn't really support liberty (even economic) like they say. And a few hardline ex republicans who think the republican party doesn't go far enough in cutting taxes and spending.
3) Ex liberals who were liberals because they believed in free choice, human rights, and all that but who recornized that the democratic party opposes all of these things. Who realized that alle the "anit-corporate" and rich bashing was a form of hate speech, and that if you really want free choice, then that includes not just the choice to be a home maker, or marry who you want, but to work where you want and to keep your money. (Yes. I'm a member of this group.)
3) Anarchists. There are anarchists who share only the description with the 1334 idiots on college campuses who just really wanted a cooler way to say "slacker". These types have noticed that every government is corrupt and that the smaller the government, necessarily the more free the people, and so they have thought a lot about just how small you can make a government and have a safe free society. They tend to get into lots of arguments with the ex republicans and democrats.
4) Objectivism. Because Objectivism is a philosophy that has libertarianism as its political component, all Objectivists are Libertarians. (Unfortunately, there are a lot of "objectivists" who actually aren't objectivists, and are really 1334 slackers who wanted a cooler name. This includes the Ayn Rand Institute.)
The biggest problem in the libertarian party is that since they draw from so many groups the groups spend too much time noticing that they came from different places and not enough time going to the people in the groups they left and pointing out to them how their groups are failing them.
Personally, I lean to a parliamentarian government. But I don't think that would solve the problem of liberty in the US. The problem of liberty in the US will not be solved until a majority of people in this country realize that:
1) There are human rights.
2) Human rights are worth fighting for.
3) If you believe in human rights, you will take up arms to defend them.
Since we have most people convinced by the two major parties that 1 is false, we don't even have the bill of rights anymore. So, we're a long way from liberty.
What do you expect from slashdot?
Thats why I call gnu "Free as in totalitarian"... in this crowd when they say "Free" they're talking about such bastions of "freedom" as stalin, marx and lenin.
Mention that someone made some money in the 90s and you get pages and pages about how they should be propping up dictatorships in east africa by sending them food to withhold from the starving in their country because "we all should care for each other, especially care for those nice brutal dictators that work so hard to keep people oppressed."
You'd think people running linux would be libertarian, or would at least understand libertarianism. But you'd be wrong.
Sheesh. You people don't even know what libertarianism is?
Of course libertarians believe in slander.
Get some education. You don't have to buy the party line, but at least understand it.
Maybe not YET. But if this situation were to hold, I'd be happy that there was at least some freedom.
But not surprised at the blatant hypocrisy of it. Its a lot easier to learn to fly a small jet than a jumbo jet. A lot easier to charter said jet than a hijack a jumbo jet, etc. etc.
Would be typical misguided bullshit "Security" to hassle people and maybe make some drug busts in the interests of perceived, rather than actual, security.