So essentially you're arguing that you have the right to disallow an employee (or ex employee) from working in your field; that non-compete clauses are legal.
This is a gray area of contract law. We can agree to disagree as there is a lot of back and forth by legal opinion on this subject. It essentially boils down to: 1) Can you sign away rights? 2) What are your rights?
You continue to misunderstand? A "non-compete clause" says an employee is unable to go elsewhere, once signed. California says that is "no-go". This has nothing to do with the state determining who is qualified to work for you, and everything to do with the worker continuing to find gainful employment.
There is plenty of law allowing you to sue employees who steal customers without non-compete clauses. Perhaps it will be the severance bonus the kicks in if you don't work for two years, but that is a different beast than a non-compete clause.
Marketing works. It convinced people that Apple still existed; until the iPod took off in 2004, people could have worked/lived for their last 10 years and never see a Mac except in a lab at school.
Thus the Apple ads; in this case Apple is the brand, so the point is to tie the iPhone to Apple (and not Sony or Google or Microsoft), so people with a positive opinion of Apple now have a positive opinion of the iPhone.
The article suggests more parallel processing will improve MoGo's performance. An 800 core system is nothing, you can build a 2,200 core system for less than 10 million dollars.
There are probably just as many people convinced of that who happen to own Macs and use Vista at work.
There has to be a kernel of truth for it to work. If Ford had a similar series of ads saying how awesome their Taurus is and how many problems the Camry had, people wouldn't believe it because the Taurus isn't better than a Camry.
Yet at the same time, if the same set of ads were done with a Prius and a Taurus, they would believe it because the Prius has visible advantages.
You're saying there aren't people in the US working 15 hour days?
This is an Apple article. People in Apple's employ have been known to work 15 hour days. I'm certain many companies, especially around crunch, have people stay for 15 hours. I've done 12, myself, but I've known people who have done 15 easy.
So what is this about minimum rights? It always boils down to supply and demand, and when there is more demand than supply, then workers get to dictate terms, and in the western world when that happened we had rights and laws instituted. Don't fool yourself, if we had more supply than demand, I don't think the laws would have passed (at least not as soon). Just look at China as the example; they will catch up, but not until quality of life rises enough that workers demand (one way or another) more benefits.
I suspect it should be possible to create a sandbox within a system that limits the capabilities of userland apps.
In other words instead of a UAC system you have a sandbox where user installed apps live and cannot get out of and the system can monitor these apps and their behaviors for maliciousness.
It's hard to write a trojan that runs on multiple operating systems. They would need to write multiplatform trojans, and for now only Windows has the dominance to ensure profitability.
Not that it isn't possible; Adobe after all has Flash for both Mac and Windows PCs.
Except for the fact that the ICE was itself an innovation.
Unless you're going to claim that Scrabulous somehow helped popularize and develop the internet, it's merely Scrabble over a network... and they would still need to license Scrabble in order to do what they did; that they did not license Scrabble means they violated trademark and copyright (at least) IP laws.
You're claiming a failure to trademark or copyright chess or shogi implies trademark or copyright is broken?
As for the "why no knockoff Scrabble", it's because people don't want to play a knockoff, they want to play Scrabble. If you want a proper example... Witness the multitude of playing cards available; every single one is interchangeable, but each one is still protected by trademark.
What are you talking about? The "Genius Bars" is the public/Apple equivalent to a newsgroup or forum. Free tech support for Apple products. How does that reinforce your commitment to not use Apple products? Not everyone is so technically skilled that they can avoid technical issues.
I mean, that has nothing to do with the music store, at all, and it's used for iPhones, iMacs, and software outside the Apple sphere along with, of course, iPods.
I mean, the whole point is you can point your tech illiterate friends to buy Apple, and when they call you for help you tell them to see a "Genius" at the Apple store. How is that different than saying, "Install Linux and RTFM" or "Install GIMP and visit the forums"? Just because Apple has a name for the role?
My daughter loves Ratatouille; perhaps you forgot that kids like animals? She pretends to be the rat (eating cheese, strawberries, biting, scampering, squeaking, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
So essentially you're arguing that you have the right to disallow an employee (or ex employee) from working in your field; that non-compete clauses are legal.
This is a gray area of contract law. We can agree to disagree as there is a lot of back and forth by legal opinion on this subject. It essentially boils down to:
1) Can you sign away rights?
2) What are your rights?
You continue to misunderstand? A "non-compete clause" says an employee is unable to go elsewhere, once signed. California says that is "no-go". This has nothing to do with the state determining who is qualified to work for you, and everything to do with the worker continuing to find gainful employment.
There is plenty of law allowing you to sue employees who steal customers without non-compete clauses. Perhaps it will be the severance bonus the kicks in if you don't work for two years, but that is a different beast than a non-compete clause.
Marketing works. It convinced people that Apple still existed; until the iPod took off in 2004, people could have worked/lived for their last 10 years and never see a Mac except in a lab at school.
Thus the Apple ads; in this case Apple is the brand, so the point is to tie the iPhone to Apple (and not Sony or Google or Microsoft), so people with a positive opinion of Apple now have a positive opinion of the iPhone.
You misunderstand my point "right to work". You're talking about "right to have job". No one has the right to have a job, you have to earn it.
Right to work means you have the right to choose where you work and may not be denied work (if you qualify/are capable).
A non compete clause violates that concept by disallowing you from work you are qualified from doing.
I happen to think that a labor union's activities are less legal too, so that means they fall into "shouldn't exist" territory for me.
The article suggests more parallel processing will improve MoGo's performance. An 800 core system is nothing, you can build a 2,200 core system for less than 10 million dollars.
There are probably just as many people convinced of that who happen to own Macs and use Vista at work.
There has to be a kernel of truth for it to work. If Ford had a similar series of ads saying how awesome their Taurus is and how many problems the Camry had, people wouldn't believe it because the Taurus isn't better than a Camry.
Yet at the same time, if the same set of ads were done with a Prius and a Taurus, they would believe it because the Prius has visible advantages.
Wait, who bought love? Apple? Or the people who paid huge premiums?
You're saying there aren't people in the US working 15 hour days?
This is an Apple article. People in Apple's employ have been known to work 15 hour days. I'm certain many companies, especially around crunch, have people stay for 15 hours. I've done 12, myself, but I've known people who have done 15 easy.
So what is this about minimum rights? It always boils down to supply and demand, and when there is more demand than supply, then workers get to dictate terms, and in the western world when that happened we had rights and laws instituted. Don't fool yourself, if we had more supply than demand, I don't think the laws would have passed (at least not as soon). Just look at China as the example; they will catch up, but not until quality of life rises enough that workers demand (one way or another) more benefits.
Then you say, "Good job, another problem solved without government intervention"
Some things are unconscionable; like signing yourself into slavery, signing away your rights, etc.
Your right to work is therefore one of those things you cannot sign away, and thus this ruling.
Just because you are forced to agree to a contract in order to gain employment does not mean the contract is right or enforceable.
If demand for work is higher than supply of work, then people who provide work can charge a premium; this translates to increased hours.
In other words, one worker for 15 hours is one bed and three meals. Two workers for 8 hours is two beds and six meals.
If there were more work than workers, workers could dictate their hours, their pay, and their benefits. Make sense?
I suspect it should be possible to create a sandbox within a system that limits the capabilities of userland apps.
In other words instead of a UAC system you have a sandbox where user installed apps live and cannot get out of and the system can monitor these apps and their behaviors for maliciousness.
It's hard to write a trojan that runs on multiple operating systems. They would need to write multiplatform trojans, and for now only Windows has the dominance to ensure profitability.
Not that it isn't possible; Adobe after all has Flash for both Mac and Windows PCs.
Except for the fact that the ICE was itself an innovation.
Unless you're going to claim that Scrabulous somehow helped popularize and develop the internet, it's merely Scrabble over a network... and they would still need to license Scrabble in order to do what they did; that they did not license Scrabble means they violated trademark and copyright (at least) IP laws.
What improvement to Scrabble did Scrabulous bring to the table? That you can play it over the internet? Your point doesn't address my question.
How about the artwork, colors, layout, and font?
Does the fact that they changed all of the above, as well as the name, indicate something about the issues at stake?
You're claiming a failure to trademark or copyright chess or shogi implies trademark or copyright is broken?
As for the "why no knockoff Scrabble", it's because people don't want to play a knockoff, they want to play Scrabble. If you want a proper example...
Witness the multitude of playing cards available; every single one is interchangeable, but each one is still protected by trademark.
So copying Scrabble is innovation?
Is that like adding "internet" to an old patent and getting a new one?
Innovation is making the game new, not copying someone else's game onto the internet.
What are you talking about? The "Genius Bars" is the public/Apple equivalent to a newsgroup or forum. Free tech support for Apple products. How does that reinforce your commitment to not use Apple products? Not everyone is so technically skilled that they can avoid technical issues.
I mean, that has nothing to do with the music store, at all, and it's used for iPhones, iMacs, and software outside the Apple sphere along with, of course, iPods.
I mean, the whole point is you can point your tech illiterate friends to buy Apple, and when they call you for help you tell them to see a "Genius" at the Apple store. How is that different than saying, "Install Linux and RTFM" or "Install GIMP and visit the forums"? Just because Apple has a name for the role?
Depends on the kid, I think.
My daughter loves Ratatouille; perhaps you forgot that kids like animals? She pretends to be the rat (eating cheese, strawberries, biting, scampering, squeaking, etc).
Why is it HE that is doing something wrong (or she)? If the system is giving headaches, why can't it be the system that is having problems?
Just because it works, or works well, doesn't mean it's not going to give someone headaches.
Palshife was probably referring to the fact that for the extra $160 you get nearly twice as much bandwidth (up to 3x) over the first iPhone.
No, the iPhone and iPod touch will sell so many units that developers are salivating at the idea of selling on it.
Just like developers are now jumping onto the Wii bandwagon.
It sounds like a market opportunity to develop SSH on the iPhone. It sounds like Yet Anooter SSH App if you develop one for a Windows or Linux phone.