It's called supply and demand. It's one of those unpleasant realities, like, say, gravity. That being said, Apple IS offering awesome wages and benefits to its employees. Compare Mr. Moll's $14/hour + health benefits + discounts + matched 401K vs. what a retail employee gets at another electronics retailer. Like, say, Frys. Or BestBuy. Or Target. He's already GOT a better deal.
And, to be honest, retail sales is not a high-skill job.
As to "this is not how I want to be treated, etc."... they are free to do so. But you're ignoring the other side of that "freedom of association" thing: the employer also has the freedom to NOT associate with them, to say "I think your demands are unreasonable, and I'm going to work with someone I think is more reasonable."
Or are you simply trying to use "freedom of association" as a smokescreen for "what's mine is mine, what's yours is mine, too."?
Two comments: First, a lot depends on where you are. In California, non-competes have been held invalid by the State Supreme Court. So if you're in CA, either when you sign the non-compete or subsequently, they can take the non-compete, fold it pointywise, and stick it - it's a totally invalid legal document. But that only applies in CA - you'd have to check with your local legal mavens. Second, if they're paying you for future work, they can't make you sign over rights/etc. to prior work. A contract is an exchange of value. If they're demanding you give them something of value (your prior work) and not providing you with value (additional payment), then they don't have a valid, enforceable contract, at least not in the US.
I would suggest (a) scratching out the non-compete, and (b) scratching out the "prior work" clauses. And yes, get a lawyer.
Right. Have you looked at federal lien filings? Tax and court both are _required_ to include the SSN/taxpayer ID # when filing this stuff. I can walk into any county records center and pull this stuff up. Since it's digitized, I can also usually search by type of filing.
And you'll note that "pursuant to any provision of law enacted on or after October 1, 1990" portion. Generally these filings are based on law going a lot further back than that.
No, you're putting off to the end what needs to happen earlier in the process. Two issues: - in this case, it appears the subpeona was issued by the plaintiff's lawyer, but never reviewed by a judge. They need to be reviewed by the judge, not just blanket issued. Normal procedure these days is to issue the subpeona, like this, and if someone doesn't like it, they can bitch. - your proposal puts off sanctions until after the whole trial is over. Pain for misconduct like this needs to occur much, MUCH earlier.
1. I provided the files in a logical directory organization. If I had dumped all of the files into a single directory, they might have had a case. That I put them on the disk in substantially the same organization I use operationally means that anything beyond that is extra work - an abuse of process. 2. Because I use the files in softcopy, not paper, demanding them on paper is, again, an extra imposition, and I can demand compensation for that. Think about it. 5000 sheets per set 8 sets, times 2 - we're talking about _pallets_ of paper here. I'm going to have to print _all_ of it. Probably buy a new high-speed printer, just to do the job. Dedicate an admin to doing this, for weeks on end. It's overly burdensome... and thus, I can demand compensation. Or, as I put it to my lawyer at the time, I'll be glad to take their money, but I'm not going to put up with that kind of month-long hassle for free, just because they're too stupid to use their own printers.
Well, I didn't see anything that said "sued". The article title says "subpeonaed", as does the linked article.
And yes, third-party witnesses get subpeonaed all the time. They're generally given notice that they'll be subpeonaed, given adequate time to prepare, and more.
And, without any documentation/etc., there's no particular reason to presume that she's got secret documents or anything else related to the case.
So, no, not all third party subpeonas are evil. But a surprising number are just plain _stupid_.
EVERYTHING. It all has to be reviewed to see if it meets any of the items they've requested. Doesn't necessarily have to be submitted, but she'd at least have to go through it.
I've been a similar situation, too. They asked for all of my written and electronic communications, writings, etc., on a certain subject of professional interest, over a ~5 year period. I'm an ex-tech-writer, so it's pretty much all softcopy. So I burned a CD, and gave them _everything_. 350MB. Then they bitched about the "and on paper, and indexed". So I told them the indexing would cost $2000 to start, billed at $200/hour, and I didn't know how long it would take. As for the paper - $1/page, for all _eight sets_ (multiple parties involved, thus multiple copies), each set running to about 5000 pages. Cash or cashiers check up front, please.
She's been given three weeks, give or take, to review virtually every electronic communication or posting, or scrap of paper, that has passed through her life in the last 4 years, and package it _all_ to take the deposition. She isn't even being offered a witness fee.
It is not "probably" an abuse of the legal system. It is one. It is also overly intrusive, and has a number of other "defects".
The last time I saw a subpeona like this, the lawyer quickly backed down, because he realized we were going to ask for sanctions for abuse of process as soon as we walked into the courthouse.
The only thing that would surprise me is if the court _doesn't_ fine the lawyer that produced that thing. "Abuse of process" barely begins to touch the matter.
Tell that to the dead tree media companies. Those that are moving to take advantage of new media (strategic advantage) are reaping the benefits in higher net sales volume. Those that are ignoring the issue (validating Carr's "no added costs, no 'wrong' choices, no time wasted") are seeing their market erode, steadily. Or look at music sales. _Some_ companies are making a pile out of the "new" market. Some are watching their net sales slide, inexorably.
Carr's theory is nice, but available empirical evidence seems to say that he's wrong.
This is called "table stakes". If you can't put in the table stakes, you aren't even in the game. He also ignores that first adopters of any given technology gain a marginal strategic advantage.
Hell, substitute "self-propelled vehicle" for "IT department". By his argument, horse-and-buggy delivery is strategically viable for most companies.
Look at the parent message. Specifically "Every fact on Wikipedia has a link back to the primary source. All you have to do is tell kids to look up the fact from the primary source and cite that, and obviously not to cite it if there is no link back or they can't find the material." At the time I replied, it was modded up to 4 (Insightful). It was not a 4, and was not insightful, and I was demonstrating why. You might note that since then, it's been modded back down to a 1.
The original poster was making claims about the factual nature of statements on Wiki, and how they're always supported by a primary source. I was pointing out that (a) the source might not be a primary, (b) the way sources are handled, bias is allowed through without comment, and (c) the "no primary research" rule doesn't allow for rebuttal from knowledgable individuals who don't bother to post a web page or some other such.
To take that further, the "no primary" rule is extremely stupid. The same statement is disallowed if posted first on Wiki, but allowed _and accepted as a cite_, if posted somewhere else first. WTF?
No, every fact on Wiki has a link back to a source. That source might be a primary source, or it might be hearsay, or a first-person witness statement... with the inherent biases therein.
Found it interesting having a factual debate on a particular Wiki page about a particular fact.
Source A (me) was a first-person participant, but was barred from directly describing something since no original research is allowed to be posted on Wiki.
Source B was also a first-person participant, and agreed in private email about the facts of the matter.
Source C was also a first-person participant, but had gotten in a pissing match, oh, 15 years ago with source B. However, since he'd made a usenet post at the time, that was considered a "primary source" and thus was gospel. It was, however, wrong as stated at the time, and therefore wrong in Wiki. But wasn't allowed to be amended due to the sourcing rules.
Wiki is only as good as the last person who posts an edit. Nothing more or less. Its fact-checking controls _suck_.
"If you're serious about doing documentation, use an XML editor with something like the DocBook DTD/Schema, not Word. Word is for shopping lists and letters, not "real" documentation."
I have to ask. How many years have you made a living writing "real" documentation? Because I really, seriously get the impression that your idea of doc is "commenting my code for college credit".
Well, my argument may, or may not be wrong. But I think you need to work on that whole "literacy" thing, because I don't think I ever mentioned the inventors of the transistor. Nope, I didn't. I said "Most of the guys who designed PCs from the mid 70s to the early 90s were Boomers."
I stand by that statement, because I used to know a useful # of them.
Actually DELIVERING something, apart from polemic
on
Embedding XML In Docs?
·
· Score: 1
Well, the XML docs I'm in the middle of writing currently have XML snippets embedded in the doc, and pointers to XSDs and suchlike as appropriate. The version of the doc that's going to come down the pike in about 6 months will have pointers to the schemas, cross-links to "live" XML sample code (plus the raw text thereof incorporated as appendices), etc. But that's waiting on the dev-rel server to go live. Lack of a reliable hosting space can be so... problematic.
As for tools - one works with what one has/can get. You can make this work in damn near anything, despite what the [must hate Microsoft] masses crow on about.
And yes, I've been doing this for a while. Just 20 years, this summer.
One works with the tools one has available. The startup I'm writing docs for right now works in Word (Office 03, actually). The previous one used Frame, because they actually had _had_ a full-time writer before I came on board.
Word is perfectly capable of accepting XML input. 2 of the 8 docs I've been working on this month have XML in them. It works out just fine.
Simple reality. Most of the guys who designed PCs from the mid 70s to the early 90s were Boomers. Deal with it. Most of the people who designed the core technologies in the internet were Boomers.
Most of the people who _did_ stuff_ on that platform were Xers. Yep, I are one, right at the front of the wave.
True. But it _is_ a newspaper of public record, one of the big 3 in American journalism. The issue was "lying to the American people", not "lying in court."
In this case, by a straight reading of the law, it isn't treason, mother-fucking or any other kind. It isn't even a federal violation, since she hadn't been overseas in a NOC position in 6 years.
BTW, if you want to get into the whole 'lying to the American people is a crime' thing, why hasn't her husband been prosecuted for the same thing? I mean, what Joe Wilson said in his NYT piece is directly contradicted by the portions of his report that were released by the 9/11 Commission as public record. You know it's bad when you lie the way Libby did. But to get hoist within a year by _your own report_? That's just, well, pathetic.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.facebook.com/buznagn#!/profile.php?id=100001315987381&sk=wall
Profile dates back into July. Before he came to public attention.
It's called supply and demand. It's one of those unpleasant realities, like, say, gravity. That being said, Apple IS offering awesome wages and benefits to its employees. Compare Mr. Moll's $14/hour + health benefits + discounts + matched 401K vs. what a retail employee gets at another electronics retailer. Like, say, Frys. Or BestBuy. Or Target. He's already GOT a better deal.
And, to be honest, retail sales is not a high-skill job.
As to "this is not how I want to be treated, etc."... they are free to do so. But you're ignoring the other side of that "freedom of association" thing: the employer also has the freedom to NOT associate with them, to say "I think your demands are unreasonable, and I'm going to work with someone I think is more reasonable."
Or are you simply trying to use "freedom of association" as a smokescreen for "what's mine is mine, what's yours is mine, too."?
Two comments:
First, a lot depends on where you are. In California, non-competes have been held invalid by the State Supreme Court. So if you're in CA, either when you sign the non-compete or subsequently, they can take the non-compete, fold it pointywise, and stick it - it's a totally invalid legal document. But that only applies in CA - you'd have to check with your local legal mavens.
Second, if they're paying you for future work, they can't make you sign over rights/etc. to prior work. A contract is an exchange of value. If they're demanding you give them something of value (your prior work) and not providing you with value (additional payment), then they don't have a valid, enforceable contract, at least not in the US.
I would suggest (a) scratching out the non-compete, and (b) scratching out the "prior work" clauses. And yes, get a lawyer.
Want something significant to ignore? Tymnet - the world's largest commercial network - in 1976.
Actually, I don't expect much else from an article written by some 20-somethings.
Right. Have you looked at federal lien filings? Tax and court both are _required_ to include the SSN/taxpayer ID # when filing this stuff. I can walk into any county records center and pull this stuff up. Since it's digitized, I can also usually search by type of filing.
And you'll note that "pursuant to any provision of law enacted on or after October 1, 1990" portion. Generally these filings are based on law going a lot further back than that.
Sorry to burst your bubble on this.
No, you're putting off to the end what needs to happen earlier in the process. Two issues:
- in this case, it appears the subpeona was issued by the plaintiff's lawyer, but never reviewed by a judge. They need to be reviewed by the judge, not just blanket issued. Normal procedure these days is to issue the subpeona, like this, and if someone doesn't like it, they can bitch.
- your proposal puts off sanctions until after the whole trial is over. Pain for misconduct like this needs to occur much, MUCH earlier.
Well, I had thought about it. But by the terms of the subpeona, I had to give them the softcopy anyway, since that's the format it was originally in.
But yes, I was chuckling over the prospect of giving them 5000 pieces of paper, in boxes... unindexed. Pretty much all junk, too.
Two reasons my I was able to ask for the money.
1. I provided the files in a logical directory organization. If I had dumped all of the files into a single directory, they might have had a case. That I put them on the disk in substantially the same organization I use operationally means that anything beyond that is extra work - an abuse of process.
2. Because I use the files in softcopy, not paper, demanding them on paper is, again, an extra imposition, and I can demand compensation for that. Think about it. 5000 sheets per set 8 sets, times 2 - we're talking about _pallets_ of paper here. I'm going to have to print _all_ of it. Probably buy a new high-speed printer, just to do the job. Dedicate an admin to doing this, for weeks on end. It's overly burdensome... and thus, I can demand compensation. Or, as I put it to my lawyer at the time, I'll be glad to take their money, but I'm not going to put up with that kind of month-long hassle for free, just because they're too stupid to use their own printers.
Well, I didn't see anything that said "sued". The article title says "subpeonaed", as does the linked article.
And yes, third-party witnesses get subpeonaed all the time. They're generally given notice that they'll be subpeonaed, given adequate time to prepare, and more.
And, without any documentation/etc., there's no particular reason to presume that she's got secret documents or anything else related to the case.
So, no, not all third party subpeonas are evil. But a surprising number are just plain _stupid_.
EVERYTHING. It all has to be reviewed to see if it meets any of the items they've requested. Doesn't necessarily have to be submitted, but she'd at least have to go through it.
I've been a similar situation, too. They asked for all of my written and electronic communications, writings, etc., on a certain subject of professional interest, over a ~5 year period. I'm an ex-tech-writer, so it's pretty much all softcopy. So I burned a CD, and gave them _everything_. 350MB. Then they bitched about the "and on paper, and indexed". So I told them the indexing would cost $2000 to start, billed at $200/hour, and I didn't know how long it would take. As for the paper - $1/page, for all _eight sets_ (multiple parties involved, thus multiple copies), each set running to about 5000 pages. Cash or cashiers check up front, please.
Yes, they blinked.
She's been given three weeks, give or take, to review virtually every electronic communication or posting, or scrap of paper, that has passed through her life in the last 4 years, and package it _all_ to take the deposition. She isn't even being offered a witness fee.
It is not "probably" an abuse of the legal system. It is one. It is also overly intrusive, and has a number of other "defects".
The last time I saw a subpeona like this, the lawyer quickly backed down, because he realized we were going to ask for sanctions for abuse of process as soon as we walked into the courthouse.
The only thing that would surprise me is if the court _doesn't_ fine the lawyer that produced that thing. "Abuse of process" barely begins to touch the matter.
Tell that to the dead tree media companies. Those that are moving to take advantage of new media (strategic advantage) are reaping the benefits in higher net sales volume. Those that are ignoring the issue (validating Carr's "no added costs, no 'wrong' choices, no time wasted") are seeing their market erode, steadily. Or look at music sales. _Some_ companies are making a pile out of the "new" market. Some are watching their net sales slide, inexorably.
Carr's theory is nice, but available empirical evidence seems to say that he's wrong.
This is called "table stakes". If you can't put in the table stakes, you aren't even in the game. He also ignores that first adopters of any given technology gain a marginal strategic advantage.
Hell, substitute "self-propelled vehicle" for "IT department". By his argument, horse-and-buggy delivery is strategically viable for most companies.
Look at the parent message. Specifically "Every fact on Wikipedia has a link back to the primary source. All you have to do is tell kids to look up the fact from the primary source and cite that, and obviously not to cite it if there is no link back or they can't find the material." At the time I replied, it was modded up to 4 (Insightful). It was not a 4, and was not insightful, and I was demonstrating why. You might note that since then, it's been modded back down to a 1.
The original poster was making claims about the factual nature of statements on Wiki, and how they're always supported by a primary source. I was pointing out that (a) the source might not be a primary, (b) the way sources are handled, bias is allowed through without comment, and (c) the "no primary research" rule doesn't allow for rebuttal from knowledgable individuals who don't bother to post a web page or some other such.
To take that further, the "no primary" rule is extremely stupid. The same statement is disallowed if posted first on Wiki, but allowed _and accepted as a cite_, if posted somewhere else first. WTF?
No, every fact on Wiki has a link back to a source. That source might be a primary source, or it might be hearsay, or a first-person witness statement... with the inherent biases therein.
Found it interesting having a factual debate on a particular Wiki page about a particular fact.
Source A (me) was a first-person participant, but was barred from directly describing something since no original research is allowed to be posted on Wiki.
Source B was also a first-person participant, and agreed in private email about the facts of the matter.
Source C was also a first-person participant, but had gotten in a pissing match, oh, 15 years ago with source B. However, since he'd made a usenet post at the time, that was considered a "primary source" and thus was gospel. It was, however, wrong as stated at the time, and therefore wrong in Wiki. But wasn't allowed to be amended due to the sourcing rules.
Wiki is only as good as the last person who posts an edit. Nothing more or less. Its fact-checking controls _suck_.
"If you're serious about doing documentation, use an XML editor with something like the DocBook DTD/Schema, not Word. Word is for shopping lists and letters, not "real" documentation."
I have to ask. How many years have you made a living writing "real" documentation? Because I really, seriously get the impression that your idea of doc is "commenting my code for college credit".
Well, my argument may, or may not be wrong. But I think you need to work on that whole "literacy" thing, because I don't think I ever mentioned the inventors of the transistor. Nope, I didn't. I said "Most of the guys who designed PCs from the mid 70s to the early 90s were Boomers."
I stand by that statement, because I used to know a useful # of them.
Well, the XML docs I'm in the middle of writing currently have XML snippets embedded in the doc, and pointers to XSDs and suchlike as appropriate. The version of the doc that's going to come down the pike in about 6 months will have pointers to the schemas, cross-links to "live" XML sample code (plus the raw text thereof incorporated as appendices), etc. But that's waiting on the dev-rel server to go live. Lack of a reliable hosting space can be so... problematic.
As for tools - one works with what one has/can get. You can make this work in damn near anything, despite what the [must hate Microsoft] masses crow on about.
And yes, I've been doing this for a while. Just 20 years, this summer.
One works with the tools one has available. The startup I'm writing docs for right now works in Word (Office 03, actually). The previous one used Frame, because they actually had _had_ a full-time writer before I came on board.
Word is perfectly capable of accepting XML input. 2 of the 8 docs I've been working on this month have XML in them. It works out just fine.
Simple reality. Most of the guys who designed PCs from the mid 70s to the early 90s were Boomers. Deal with it. Most of the people who designed the core technologies in the internet were Boomers.
Most of the people who _did_ stuff_ on that platform were Xers. Yep, I are one, right at the front of the wave.
Technologically, you're wrong. Now, in terms of finance and multigenerational ethics I might be more inclned to agree with you.
"Glue stick"?
Hell, I think I've still got a hot wax rig and roller in the garage someplace.
And unless you're careful about your assembly, and get the edges right, the seams do NOT miraculously vanish. They're quite visible, actually.
True. But it _is_ a newspaper of public record, one of the big 3 in American journalism. The issue was "lying to the American people", not "lying in court."
In this case, by a straight reading of the law, it isn't treason, mother-fucking or any other kind. It isn't even a federal violation, since she hadn't been overseas in a NOC position in 6 years.
BTW, if you want to get into the whole 'lying to the American people is a crime' thing, why hasn't her husband been prosecuted for the same thing? I mean, what Joe Wilson said in his NYT piece is directly contradicted by the portions of his report that were released by the 9/11 Commission as public record. You know it's bad when you lie the way Libby did. But to get hoist within a year by _your own report_? That's just, well, pathetic.