Doesn't change the facts. People are laid off from jobs constantly for no reason. A recent story concerned a company that makes FORTY MILLION DOLLARS A MONTH that laid off 4000 people for "strategic reasons." This was, of course, right before the holidays.
So 4000 people lost their jobs, their paychecks, had their credit destroyed, savings destroyed, retirement destroyed, probably lost their cars and possibly even their homes for some management "strategy." This story is not unique. I've seen people laid off with five minutes notice. No reason. No recourse. No nothing. Just pack your stuff and get out.
All along we've been told "do a good job and you'll succeed."
Now it's "keep your mouth shut and you won't get laid off." Not subtle and quite different. I don't know how to succeed in a "business" climate where success is measured in something other than good work. All I know is the only thing I got from my seven years is seven years technical experience, which to potential employers is now worthless.
You can either work for a large established company, work 9-5, no shares (maybe stock options if your lucky), work for 30 years and retire
On what planet?
Most companies aren't even in business 30 years, and I know exactly zero people who have been employed at the same place for 2 years or more, and everyone I know who is getting close to two years is under constant pressure of imminent layoffs.
Planning for retirement is so far off in happy land that it is enough to give people stomach cramps.
One thing that has become apparent: no one is impressed by anything any more.
It takes literally a few minutes after the release of ANYTHING for people to be wheezing "ehhh, it sucked and by the way everything sux"
I'm not defending the Star Wars trailer (because I haven't seen it), this is just a general observation. What does it take for people to like something? I think "stunning visuals" are becoming a commodity, or at least, one would think they were by the collective yawn everything is received with any more.
Maybe it's just because we know it is fake and further, we know how it was faked. Like a magician who's tricks are all explained ahead of time. I don't know. I'm just wondering if perhaps "the audience is no longer listening."
"Polish" is one of those non-descript, abstract terms used mainly by marketing people and "yeah, but" types to criticize something they don't like. It's 100% subjective and meaningless.
Now, something specific like "the fonts are too small, and it is difficult to change them" would be useful, for example.
Whoops! No House version. Oh, well. Guess it's time to amend the Constitution so only the Senate has to vote to pass laws regarding copyright. Oh, wait, that needs the House too...
This is keeping the interesting artists off the air?
Wrong.
Somebody listens to it. Someone buys the albums. N'Sync didn't get big because of major label payola, they got big because some clown looked at a shelf in a record store, and said, 'I want THIS one!'
What makes you think they aren't buying shelf space too? It works with computer games, why not records?
Ok. It's an editorial, not an article, granted. As general journalism is concerned (circulation measured in thousands) it's a rather fine hair to split.
I just don't see how the Fox piece does anything to promote our rights in an intelligent manner.
It may not, but one thing it will do is get the attention of people; a lot of people. There are a number of journalists who regularly appear on/watch Fox News. It would be nice if additional articles showed up in other political newsletters, magazines, Wall Street Journal, etc.
Please note that the linked article is a partisan opinion piece by a law professor. It isn't the work of a Fox columnist; it doesn't necessarily represent the opinions of Fox or its affiliates.
Really? I saw no such disclaimer on the Fox site. Are they no longer supporting editorials? If so, why was the article run in the first place?
That's great, and it is definitely an advantage for students. However, it does little to help small businesses.
Suppose a business sells a product for $50 and has a 20% profit margin. Not bad. For each unit sold, the business makes $10.
In order to buy Authorware 6, that business has to move over 300 units FOR ONE PIECE OF SOFTWARE. For the whole list, it's closer to 1,000 units.
One THOUSAND units sold in order to buy a handful of programs. For that price, the business could hire and pay two employees for three months, lease an office for almost two years, develop a new product or two, or even buy an entire office full of computers. The prices for these programs are just plain too high.
For example: check the price on Maya lately? How's ELEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS??? That's a down payment on a house, fer cryin' out loud!! I don't care what it does, there is no commercial software product worth $11,000, period.
Macromedia Authorware 6: $3,084 Adobe Photoshop 6: $700 Adobe Premiere 6: $620 Adobe Illustrator 10: $470 MS Office XP: $580 MS VS.NET Professional: $570 Macromedia Director 8.5: $1,199
Now, I don't support warezzzzzzzzzzzzing programs.
But the average student, developer, even small business cannot afford this. Period. When the average cost of development tools, operating systems, graphics programs, etc. are $500 - $3000 EACH, and the market cannot support that kind of pricing, then potential customers will find another way: either they'll find a less expensive program that has much of the same capability, buy it second-hand, or do without.
This is one reason I think the market for second-hand software is increasing, as much as the publishers would like to have it otherwise.
One thing these publishers should realize is that not every potential customer is a cell-phone-flipping, white shirt and tie "IT Executive" with steel-rimmed glasses and access to a six-figure expense budget.
I'm reminded of a quote I heard over the weekend. Apparently the "leader of the club that's made for you and me" stated in the hearings (in a rather irritated, spiteful tone of voice) that "if things don't change soon, we might have to change the way we do business."
Now that we finally have a more-or-less compatible and standard set of web browsers across the major platforms, let's abandon all of that and start over with another format.
</sarcasm>
Re:Almost never saw the light of day
on
The Rise of CSI
·
· Score: 2
Now why doesn't that surprise me in the least?
I guess every single industry has it's own version of the "yeah, but" clowns.
Due Process per the 5th amendment applies ONLY to CRIMINAL prosecution;
Granted, to a point:
...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
This text, since the due process clause is part of the entire clause referencing criminal cases, would seem to support such a point, however, in light of the 14th amendment's qualification of these rights:
...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws...
it brings the general rights granted in the 5th Amendment into specific relief with regard to the absolute right of a citizen, in any legal matter, civil or otherwise, to due process of law.
Concealed actions by a representative or officer of a court, and failure to notify a defendant, are direct, flagrant and egregious violations of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and my guess is that a Federal Court would have precious little patience for any of it.
In Montana, and doubtless in some other states, notice of suit is considered to be LEGALLY ACCEPTED BY YOU when it is recorded as having been mailed by the court clerk. Whether it was actually mailed or not is irrelevant -- and since there is no requirement that notice be done by trackable mail, there is no way to determine if it was ever actually mailed or not. If you don't show up because someone slipped the clerk a few bucks to "lose" the letter, too damned bad.
Until someone slips an attorney a few bucks to file suit in Federal Court for violation of the 5th Amendment Right to Due Process and the 14th Amendment Guarantee of Equal Protection, then it's a whole new ball game.:)
They claim he got a letter by registered mail, which means he had to sign for it. He claims he never got it. Seems like a simple thing to go back and check the receipt of the letter (if there was one) and see if he signed for it.
There is another issue which could make the entire matter of the certified letter irrelevant. (IANAL - so this is not legal advice)
AFAIK, all available means to serve the defendant in person must be exhausted and *documented* as such before a court will allow service by mail. If the plaintiff had a mailing address, why couldn't they serve in person? If they could serve in person, then that would be grounds to have the judgement vacated, and start over.
Because of this litigation has concentrated on Section 1 of the statute, which states that a work made for hire is "a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment".
thus,
used to describe the work of an employee, where it is presumed as part of employment.
For the sake of completeness, shall I quote the entire text of the title next time? Once I'm found quoting myself, that would seem to indicate all of the relevant information has been covered adequately.
You're mistaken. A work for hire is a work prepared by an employee within the course and scope of his employment.
OR
"a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work... if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire." U.S.C. Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 101
"Work for Hire" is traditionally used to describe cases of independent contribution to a larger work. It is rarely if ever used to describe the work of an employee, where it is presumed as part of employment.
Slashdot Mirror
That's nice.
Doesn't change the facts. People are laid off from jobs constantly for no reason. A recent story concerned a company that makes FORTY MILLION DOLLARS A MONTH that laid off 4000 people for "strategic reasons." This was, of course, right before the holidays.
So 4000 people lost their jobs, their paychecks, had their credit destroyed, savings destroyed, retirement destroyed, probably lost their cars and possibly even their homes for some management "strategy." This story is not unique. I've seen people laid off with five minutes notice. No reason. No recourse. No nothing. Just pack your stuff and get out.
All along we've been told "do a good job and you'll succeed."
Now it's "keep your mouth shut and you won't get laid off." Not subtle and quite different. I don't know how to succeed in a "business" climate where success is measured in something other than good work. All I know is the only thing I got from my seven years is seven years technical experience, which to potential employers is now worthless.
You can either work for a large established company, work 9-5, no shares (maybe stock options if your lucky), work for 30 years and retire
On what planet?
Most companies aren't even in business 30 years, and I know exactly zero people who have been employed at the same place for 2 years or more, and everyone I know who is getting close to two years is under constant pressure of imminent layoffs.
Planning for retirement is so far off in happy land that it is enough to give people stomach cramps.
This is Mr. Obi-Wan Kenobi of the deserts of the planet Tatooine. He cannot be seen...
One thing that has become apparent: no one is impressed by anything any more.
It takes literally a few minutes after the release of ANYTHING for people to be wheezing "ehhh, it sucked and by the way everything sux"
I'm not defending the Star Wars trailer (because I haven't seen it), this is just a general observation. What does it take for people to like something? I think "stunning visuals" are becoming a commodity, or at least, one would think they were by the collective yawn everything is received with any more.
Maybe it's just because we know it is fake and further, we know how it was faked. Like a magician who's tricks are all explained ahead of time. I don't know. I'm just wondering if perhaps "the audience is no longer listening."
Just a thought.
When did the Internet become "ruled by suits?"
Was there a memo about this?
"Polish" is one of those non-descript, abstract terms used mainly by marketing people and "yeah, but" types to criticize something they don't like. It's 100% subjective and meaningless.
Now, something specific like "the fonts are too small, and it is difficult to change them" would be useful, for example.
Whoops! No House version. Oh, well. Guess it's time to amend the Constitution so only the Senate has to vote to pass laws regarding copyright. Oh, wait, that needs the House too...
GOODNIGHT EVERYBODY!!!
This is keeping the interesting artists off the air?
Wrong.
Somebody listens to it. Someone buys the albums. N'Sync didn't get big because of major label payola, they got big because some clown looked at a shelf in a record store, and said, 'I want THIS one!'
What makes you think they aren't buying shelf space too? It works with computer games, why not records?
Ok. It's an editorial, not an article, granted. As general journalism is concerned (circulation measured in thousands) it's a rather fine hair to split.
I just don't see how the Fox piece does anything to promote our rights in an intelligent manner.
It may not, but one thing it will do is get the attention of people; a lot of people. There are a number of journalists who regularly appear on/watch Fox News. It would be nice if additional articles showed up in other political newsletters, magazines, Wall Street Journal, etc.
Please note that the linked article is a partisan opinion piece by a law professor. It isn't the work of a Fox columnist; it doesn't necessarily represent the opinions of Fox or its affiliates.
Really? I saw no such disclaimer on the Fox site. Are they no longer supporting editorials? If so, why was the article run in the first place?
That's great, and it is definitely an advantage for students. However, it does little to help small businesses.
Suppose a business sells a product for $50 and has a 20% profit margin. Not bad. For each unit sold, the business makes $10.
In order to buy Authorware 6, that business has to move over 300 units FOR ONE PIECE OF SOFTWARE. For the whole list, it's closer to 1,000 units.
One THOUSAND units sold in order to buy a handful of programs. For that price, the business could hire and pay two employees for three months, lease an office for almost two years, develop a new product or two, or even buy an entire office full of computers. The prices for these programs are just plain too high.
For example: check the price on Maya lately? How's ELEVEN THOUSAND DOLLARS??? That's a down payment on a house, fer cryin' out loud!! I don't care what it does, there is no commercial software product worth $11,000, period.
How about some realistic pricing?
Macromedia Authorware 6: $3,084
Adobe Photoshop 6: $700
Adobe Premiere 6: $620
Adobe Illustrator 10: $470
MS Office XP: $580
MS VS.NET Professional: $570
Macromedia Director 8.5: $1,199
Now, I don't support warezzzzzzzzzzzzing
programs.
But the average student, developer, even small business cannot afford this. Period. When the
average cost of development tools, operating systems, graphics programs, etc. are $500 - $3000 EACH, and the market cannot support that kind of pricing, then potential customers will find another way: either they'll find a less expensive program that has much of the same capability, buy it second-hand, or do without.
This is one reason I think the market for second-hand software is increasing, as much as the publishers would like to have it otherwise.
One thing these publishers should realize is that not every potential customer is a cell-phone-flipping, white shirt and tie "IT Executive" with steel-rimmed glasses and access to a six-figure expense budget.
Do these people have nothing CONSTRUCTIVE to do, for crying out loud?
Nahhh. They've laid everyone off already, and now there aren't any people to attend meetings.
But, with Eisner making these comments could the already difficult relationship between Disney and Pixar become even more strained?
If they do, Disney won't be able to make anything but Peter Pan sequels. Shame...
I'm reminded of a quote I heard over the weekend. Apparently the "leader of the club that's made for you and me" stated in the hearings (in a rather irritated, spiteful tone of voice) that "if things don't change soon, we might have to change the way we do business."
Gee, you think?
Slow Down Cowboy!
...and to make sure you slow down, we'll make sure the back button also eats your comment.
Anyway, Red Hat. $19B market cap, and a couple of recent profitable quarters as well.
Now that we finally have a more-or-less compatible and standard set of web browsers across the major platforms, let's abandon all of that and start over with another format.
</sarcasm>
Now why doesn't that surprise me in the least?
I guess every single industry has it's own version of the "yeah, but" clowns.
And you don't have one without a lawyer either.
Anyone can file a lawsuit. The technical term (IIRC) is pro se.
Well, first of all, the first ammendment doesn't apply to the states.
Huh???????
Due Process per the 5th amendment applies ONLY to CRIMINAL prosecution;
Granted, to a point:
...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
This text, since the due process clause is part of the entire clause referencing criminal cases, would seem to support such a point, however, in light of the 14th amendment's qualification of these rights:
...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws...
it brings the general rights granted in the 5th Amendment into specific relief with regard to the absolute right of a citizen, in any legal matter, civil or otherwise, to due process of law.
Concealed actions by a representative or officer of a court, and failure to notify a defendant, are direct, flagrant and egregious violations of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and my guess is that a Federal Court would have precious little patience for any of it.
In Montana, and doubtless in some other states, notice of suit is considered to be LEGALLY ACCEPTED BY YOU when it is recorded as having been mailed by the court clerk. Whether it was actually mailed or not is irrelevant -- and since there is no requirement that notice be done by trackable mail, there is no way to determine if it was ever actually mailed or not. If you don't show up because someone slipped the clerk a few bucks to "lose" the letter, too damned bad.
:)
Until someone slips an attorney a few bucks to file suit in Federal Court for violation of the 5th Amendment Right to Due Process and the 14th Amendment Guarantee of Equal Protection, then it's a whole new ball game.
They claim he got a letter by registered mail, which means he had to sign for it. He claims he never got it. Seems like a simple thing to go back and check the receipt of the letter (if there was one) and see if he signed for it.
There is another issue which could make the entire matter of the certified letter irrelevant. (IANAL - so this is not legal advice)
AFAIK, all available means to serve the defendant in person must be exhausted and *documented* as such before a court will allow service by mail. If the plaintiff had a mailing address, why couldn't they serve in person? If they could serve in person, then that would be grounds to have the judgement vacated, and start over.
Just a thought. Again, IANAL.
Because of this litigation has concentrated on Section 1 of the statute, which states that a work made for hire is "a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment".
thus,
used to describe the work of an employee, where it is presumed as part of employment.
For the sake of completeness, shall I quote the entire text of the title next time? Once I'm found quoting myself, that would seem to indicate all of the relevant information has been covered adequately.
You're mistaken.
... if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire." U.S.C. Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 101
A work for hire is a work prepared by an employee within the course and scope of his employment.
OR
"a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work
"Work for Hire" is traditionally used to describe cases of independent contribution to a larger work. It is rarely if ever used to describe the work of an employee, where it is presumed as part of employment.