I recall a story several years ago about a bunch of auto-workers who were laid off.... their union whined and whined.
And in a roundabout way, it turned out that the union pension fund all the workers were investing in was at some point re-investing in the company, hmm. See the problem here? Their own money helped exert pressure to axe their jobs.
A public company just can't exist in a nice stable way where they employe x people and stay that way. The MUST grow.... it's sick.
Also... loyalty is earned, or perhaps bought. It's a two-way street.
if you offer me a salary, and a job.. I'll do that job. If you are a stickler for rules, I will be too, doing no more than I'm being paid to do.
If you give me leeway with when I work, don't bitch at me when I come in late every day, so long as my work is done, then I will in turn give you extra time when it's needed, without fuss.
If you treat me with respect, I'll treat you with respect. If you show a sincere effort to be loyal to me, I will return the favor
Public companies are the real problem. Why don't public companies do the 'right' thing all too often? Because. The board has a mandate to maximize shareholder value, PERIOD. The shareholders want MORE MONEY, period. It's not up to them to give things away or do the 'right' thing.
Napster is in the business of selling advertising. That's how they try to make money, selling banner ads and such.
They attract viewers by encouraging the unlawful trading of music. Yes, their system can and is used for other things, but napster inc. knows they will have tons of users because people want to pirate music. This is the flaw in their business model; the chief way they attract viewers is by encouring/helping them do something illegal.
A website based on the same principle would be just as bad.
Now the courts have said that Napster can stay in business, as long as they block searches that the record companies tell them to. What's unfair about that?
Remember, the courts don't have to decide how napster is going to do this. What the courts have asked for is fair and just.
They've said that if the record companies want napster to block a file because it infringes, then they have to give napster the name of the file, and napster has to block it.
Whether that is PRACTICAL or not isn't the issue. The court merely says that if napster will do this, then they can continue to operate.
1) That's misquoted. Napster doesn't have anything on it's servers.
2) What Napster is required to do is block all ifnringing materials from being searched for.
3) The Record companies must furnish napster with a list of what to block.
So.. what the court ordered was that napster had to bock all infringing materials the record companies told it about. Isn't that what napster said they would do in the first place?
Because that takes them out of the equation! Napster's only potential value is in it's servers, banner ads, and whatever else they come up with now that they have a captive audience.
1) Those from sealand do not travel under Sealand passports, though they hold them.
2) Many people have 'forged' sealand passports that they mistakenly try to travel under.
If you have a task that you know you can do with the necessary reliability with MS SQLServer and Access, or mysql, or whatever other low-end database you want... then you don't need oracale. If you have such a task, you also are not a bank doing transaction processing, and you are not doing any truly mission-critical tasks.
Oracle can cost a lot more than the 50 thousand bucks you mention... a lot more. Oracle is extremely scalable, and extermely stable. Oracle offers 24x7x365 support and backs their product 100% (for a fee, of course).
To put it differently, if you were aware of a situation that actually used oracle for good reasons, you probably wouldn't have asked the question in the first place.
2) Your summary is essentially correct, but the root cause of the way ISP's charge is.... that's their business model. They don't care about charging for bandwidth, because the vast majority of their customers have the same usage habits. Someone who actually uses the bandwidth they pay for is a 'bad net citizen' or an 'abuser'.
That is why ISP's will invariably, eventually, shift to a model where you pay for what you use.
I tell you, if @home would come to me when I use lots of bandwidth and say 'look, you use three times the bandwdith of our averagesubscriber... so we want you to pay 3 times as much' I'd probably say 'Okay.. sounds fair'. But they don't, they just cut you off.
ISP's *WILL* hand out ipv6 addresses for free, because that's how it's designed. It will be easy for an ISP to get a/64 (that means half the bits will be available for them to assign) which is a size that is larger than the current internet nowadays times itself (due to address wastage).
It is ENTIRELY possible, and will be commonly done, to assign large blocks to each user, so as many devices as they want can be online, AS IT SHOULD BE.
Built-in hardware hibernation works fine on my vaio z505le too. If I recall, it uses the fat32 partition at the beginning of the disk to store state information. you only have to make sure this partition is the appropritae size.
So as I understand it then, you are free to choose either license?
That makes sense.. I thought the previous poster was implying that both licenses had to be satisfied.. which is counter to GPL.
Then again, as the compelte copyright holder, they can release it under whatever bizarre licenses they want, it just might mean nobody's technically allowed to use it.
like a troll. In fact, I think it is. But I'll bite.
He isn't working on it on his employer's time. He doesn't WANT to work on it in his employer's time. He's just in a conflict of interest because his employer wants him to work on exactly the same thing now.
I won't respond to the 'open source = theft' argument. Give it a rest.
As for how to prevent employees from doing this.. it's called MANAGEMENT.
Management should know the amount of work it expects out of it's employees... you're PAYING them for soemthing. It's up to management to maximize it's use of employees, which includes keeping them happy. You keep them focused on the task at hand by having reasonable goals and deadlines, a healthy work environement, and making sure people who don't hold their weight get cut out.
If you end up with one hidden genius who you find out has been delivering everything on time, yet has still worked on something else while at work... DON'T GET MAD. He delivered what he was asked to deliver. If you feel he should be producing more.. PAY HIM MORE, he's WORTH IT.
If the whole group goofs off all day, on the other hand, you aren't managing very well.
Your first concern should be the obvious potention conflict of interest. This isn't a bad word, it just means there is a conflict.
You have been working on something on your own time, you own it. You have a vested interest in it.
Your company has an interest in doing something as well.
If you already have such a product on the go, then somehow or other you MUST bring this to their attention. Point out that you cannot work on it because it would result in a conflict of interest (on both sides). Better yet, talk to a lawyer first, so you don't get screwed. Anything is possible. Perhaps they agree to pay you to finish the product (ie: at your dayjob), in return for your licensing it to them. Under that license, perhaps they pay you royalties on product sold. Ideally, you would be free to continue to develop and market said product independently of them.
TALK TO A LAWYER, if this has any value to you, because even if you do nothing.. you are in a conflict of interest.
Re:Not really object oriented is it ?
on
Announcing PHP-GTK
·
· Score: 2
How can something be availableu nder the GPL for non-commercial development. the GPL forbids such restrictions.
Right. But it sounds like your contract wasn't as simple as most of the BS ones in the IT industry that simply say 'whenever you leave here for whatever reason, you cannot work in the IT field for 2 years'.
You suspended them for three months, with prior-agreed compensation... sounds like a relatively fair contract.
They blew it in the first place by not enforcing the regulations just so they could make more money encouragnig everyone to register the same name under.com,.net, and.org.
.com for commercial entities
.net for network infrastructure
.org for other organistations.
They let it down.. and NOW they wanna go back to the other way after taking everyone's money.
The majority of non-compete clauses, especially for standard IT jobs are completely unenforcable. Most jurisdictions have laws that, contract or not, nobody can prevent you from performing your trade.
In cases where your position is unique enough (read: VP or other important position) where such a clause is applicable, and in any other case, such contract should involve:
Your asking your former employer if you can take the new job you want. If it's in the same field, they can decide to not allow you to take that job. If they DO decide not to let you, and you don't want to contest it, they should have to pay you according to a fair salary to stay out of that job.
Slashdot Mirror
I recall a story several years ago about a bunch of auto-workers who were laid off.... their union whined and whined.
And in a roundabout way, it turned out that the union pension fund all the workers were investing in was at some point re-investing in the company, hmm. See the problem here? Their own money helped exert pressure to axe their jobs.
A public company just can't exist in a nice stable way where they employe x people and stay that way. The MUST grow.... it's sick.
Also... loyalty is earned, or perhaps bought. It's a two-way street.
if you offer me a salary, and a job.. I'll do that job. If you are a stickler for rules, I will be too, doing no more than I'm being paid to do.
If you give me leeway with when I work, don't bitch at me when I come in late every day, so long as my work is done, then I will in turn give you extra time when it's needed, without fuss.
If you treat me with respect, I'll treat you with respect. If you show a sincere effort to be loyal to me, I will return the favor
Public companies are the real problem. Why don't public companies do the 'right' thing all too often? Because. The board has a mandate to maximize shareholder value, PERIOD. The shareholders want MORE MONEY, period. It's not up to them to give things away or do the 'right' thing.
Napster is in the business of selling advertising. That's how they try to make money, selling banner ads and such.
They attract viewers by encouraging the unlawful trading of music. Yes, their system can and is used for other things, but napster inc. knows they will have tons of users because people want to pirate music. This is the flaw in their business model; the chief way they attract viewers is by encouring/helping them do something illegal.
A website based on the same principle would be just as bad.
Now the courts have said that Napster can stay in business, as long as they block searches that the record companies tell them to. What's unfair about that?
Remember, the courts don't have to decide how napster is going to do this. What the courts have asked for is fair and just.
They've said that if the record companies want napster to block a file because it infringes, then they have to give napster the name of the file, and napster has to block it.
Whether that is PRACTICAL or not isn't the issue. The court merely says that if napster will do this, then they can continue to operate.
What if he's 200 feet underground in a mine? Is he going to sue the mine for not having cellphone transponders in the mine shaft? Get real.
If it's clearly indicated that cellular phones will not work in the theater... so be it.
Also.. consider this.
I could, if I so wished, build my house as a farraday cage, so no radio inside can communicate with outside. I don't need a license to do this.
How is active jamming within the bounds of my own property any different?
1) That's misquoted. Napster doesn't have anything on it's servers.
2) What Napster is required to do is block all ifnringing materials from being searched for.
3) The Record companies must furnish napster with a list of what to block.
So.. what the court ordered was that napster had to bock all infringing materials the record companies told it about. Isn't that what napster said they would do in the first place?
Sounds fair to me anyway.
That has no bearing on what I said. I *know* that's what they mean. And in this case, that's not what aimster does.
This in no way appears to protect a copyright holders rights.
Under DMCA, reverse-engineering an effective copy-control mechanism is illegal. This is what the RIAA claims that DECSS does.
Simply breaking any old encryption is not, nor is it a copyright issue.
If that encryption is used for copy control.. then it is. This is not.
Old atari games were small, written for simple processors with simple instructions, relatively speaking.
Therefore, it's easy to port the software to a phone of today.
And saying two simple systems can be superimposed is a lot different than saying two complex ones can.
Because that takes them out of the equation! Napster's only potential value is in it's servers, banner ads, and whatever else they come up with now that they have a captive audience.
1) Those from sealand do not travel under Sealand passports, though they hold them.
2) Many people have 'forged' sealand passports that they mistakenly try to travel under.
If you have a task that you know you can do with the necessary reliability with MS SQLServer and Access, or mysql, or whatever other low-end database you want... then you don't need oracale. If you have such a task, you also are not a bank doing transaction processing, and you are not doing any truly mission-critical tasks.
Oracle can cost a lot more than the 50 thousand bucks you mention... a lot more. Oracle is extremely scalable, and extermely stable. Oracle offers 24x7x365 support and backs their product 100% (for a fee, of course).
To put it differently, if you were aware of a situation that actually used oracle for good reasons, you probably wouldn't have asked the question in the first place.
I can't believe how many people are whining about what a stupid idea this is.
How is this any different than wine? HMM? The tables are just reversed.
Who cares if YOU have no use for it, someone else might.
is that 'what your personal beliefs are' is NOT THE GOVERNMENTS, OR ANYONE ELSES BUSINESS unless you want to make them their business.
1) T3's are a lot more than that....
2) Your summary is essentially correct, but the root cause of the way ISP's charge is.... that's their business model. They don't care about charging for bandwidth, because the vast majority of their customers have the same usage habits. Someone who actually uses the bandwidth they pay for is a 'bad net citizen' or an 'abuser'.
That is why ISP's will invariably, eventually, shift to a model where you pay for what you use.
I tell you, if @home would come to me when I use lots of bandwidth and say 'look, you use three times the bandwdith of our averagesubscriber... so we want you to pay 3 times as much' I'd probably say 'Okay.. sounds fair'. But they don't, they just cut you off.
ISP's *WILL* hand out ipv6 addresses for free, because that's how it's designed. It will be easy for an ISP to get a /64 (that means half the bits will be available for them to assign) which is a size that is larger than the current internet nowadays times itself (due to address wastage).
It is ENTIRELY possible, and will be commonly done, to assign large blocks to each user, so as many devices as they want can be online, AS IT SHOULD BE.
Now, any 'communication' constitutes an original work for the purposes of copyright protection. Get over it.
I agree, discerning a 'communication' from an 'original, copywritten work' is rather difficult.
Built-in hardware hibernation works fine on my vaio z505le too. If I recall, it uses the fat32 partition at the beginning of the disk to store state information. you only have to make sure this partition is the appropritae size.
So as I understand it then, you are free to choose either license?
That makes sense.. I thought the previous poster was implying that both licenses had to be satisfied.. which is counter to GPL.
Then again, as the compelte copyright holder, they can release it under whatever bizarre licenses they want, it just might mean nobody's technically allowed to use it.
like a troll. In fact, I think it is. But I'll bite.
He isn't working on it on his employer's time. He doesn't WANT to work on it in his employer's time. He's just in a conflict of interest because his employer wants him to work on exactly the same thing now.
I won't respond to the 'open source = theft' argument. Give it a rest.
As for how to prevent employees from doing this.. it's called MANAGEMENT.
Management should know the amount of work it expects out of it's employees... you're PAYING them for soemthing. It's up to management to maximize it's use of employees, which includes keeping them happy. You keep them focused on the task at hand by having reasonable goals and deadlines, a healthy work environement, and making sure people who don't hold their weight get cut out.
If you end up with one hidden genius who you find out has been delivering everything on time, yet has still worked on something else while at work... DON'T GET MAD. He delivered what he was asked to deliver. If you feel he should be producing more.. PAY HIM MORE, he's WORTH IT.
If the whole group goofs off all day, on the other hand, you aren't managing very well.
I'd think this is obvious to any real manager.
Barring any contracts you haven't mentioned.....
Your first concern should be the obvious potention conflict of interest. This isn't a bad word, it just means there is a conflict.
You have been working on something on your own time, you own it. You have a vested interest in it.
Your company has an interest in doing something as well.
If you already have such a product on the go, then somehow or other you MUST bring this to their attention. Point out that you cannot work on it because it would result in a conflict of interest (on both sides). Better yet, talk to a lawyer first, so you don't get screwed. Anything is possible. Perhaps they agree to pay you to finish the product (ie: at your dayjob), in return for your licensing it to them. Under that license, perhaps they pay you royalties on product sold. Ideally, you would be free to continue to develop and market said product independently of them.
TALK TO A LAWYER, if this has any value to you, because even if you do nothing.. you are in a conflict of interest.
How can something be availableu nder the GPL for non-commercial development. the GPL forbids such restrictions.
Right. But it sounds like your contract wasn't as simple as most of the BS ones in the IT industry that simply say 'whenever you leave here for whatever reason, you cannot work in the IT field for 2 years'.
You suspended them for three months, with prior-agreed compensation... sounds like a relatively fair contract.
They blew it in the first place by not enforcing the regulations just so they could make more money encouragnig everyone to register the same name under .com, .net, and .org.
.com for commercial entities
.net for network infrastructure
.org for other organistations.
They let it down.. and NOW they wanna go back to the other way after taking everyone's money.
Time for new root servers.
The majority of non-compete clauses, especially for standard IT jobs are completely unenforcable. Most jurisdictions have laws that, contract or not, nobody can prevent you from performing your trade.
In cases where your position is unique enough (read: VP or other important position) where such a clause is applicable, and in any other case, such contract should involve:
Your asking your former employer if you can take the new job you want. If it's in the same field, they can decide to not allow you to take that job. If they DO decide not to let you, and you don't want to contest it, they should have to pay you according to a fair salary to stay out of that job.