How about requiring correct answers to questions that have significant long term research done establishing the effectiveness in producing non-self-destructive (life), non-drug-addicted & non-violent-crime committing (liberty), happy (happiness), individuals. We have some document somewhere that defines those as important, well-established goals for our society. So if there were specific parenting practices proven with double blind studies to promote those goals, would that be ok to enforce?
As an alternative to this view, consider the possibility that you might prefilter your sperm, and then use artificial insemination. Do you have the right to do what you want with your sperm?
The main place where you go awry in your argument is your premise that the only justification for forced intervention in others lives is self defense. That's not at all the way we've modeled our society, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find many who would agree with you.
As a simple example, promoting the general welfare is a commonly accepted justification for forced intervention in others lives. For example, we force everyone to pay a tax on gasoline to build roads, and I think you'd struggle to convince me that the majority don't agree with this policy.
So philosophically, you might ask: would it promote the group well being to ban sex selection? One might argue that we all benefit in overally happiness in life if the ratio of men to women is approximately 50/50, and that sex selection will skew the ratio, and that therefore we must ban it.
Is Mr. Wizard really a member of the fraternal order of science guys? It's a trademarked name, so if he isn't, he can't claim to be a 'science guy'. Bill Nye, the science guy, is definitely my favorite 'science guy'.
That would totally change the nature of slashdot. Think about what would happen to arguments if you could go back and make little corrections to your logic/premises. You'd be able to make your responders look like fools.
HP is to blame when the contract they wrote is in violation of the law. My favorite example is if they offer you a contract for perpetual slavery in exchange for food for your family. You may sign it out of desperation, but that doesn't make it enforceable in this country, and it doesn't get HP out of owing you back wages and benefits for work performed.
Signing all those contracts is great. Do you know how many, if any of them, are legally enforceable?
The problem is that some companies like to treat contractors like they were employees. Labor worked hard to pass laws differentiating the two for a reason. As a result, they are legally differentiated, and no contract you can sign will ultimately trump those laws.
It works a lot like contracting yourself into slavery: you can't do it, no matter what you sign.
Or as one alternative to unionizing and collective bargaining at every employer in every incident of unfair hiring practices, gang up and pass laws restricting the kind of contracts that can be offered, and legally defining the difference between contract work and employment.
Oh wait, that's what we did, and why this suit has merit.
Exploited is when they hire you as a contractor for the same work that employees are doing at a lower wage level than the employees and without benefits, but then fail also to treat you as a contractor (ie abuse your freedom to effect your job as you see fit).
Were you required to produce animations/whatever according to their methods, or could you do it however you wanted? One implies you were an employee, the other a contractor. These things are legal definitions written into state laws. You can't change them nor sign away your rights magically just by signing a contract. It's just like you can't sell yourself into slavery. If the work you do legally defines you as an employee, then you are an employee, and owed employee benefits, regardless of what illegal contracts you may have signed which said otherwise.
Thankfully, in sane states you can't do this. Either your time becomes the company's time (and they have to start paying you over time) or your time is your time and they don't get rights to what you do on your time.
It does cost power to push signal to each house. However, they actually pay that cost regardless of whether you receive the signal or not. Typically, a trap is installed which drops the signal just outside your home, or the signal is just encrypted, and they push it to you regardless of whether or not you are supposed to have decryption hardware.
Personally, I have no philosophical issues with people doing whatever they want with signals that arrive in their homes. If cable companies don't like that, they should set up their networks not to deliver signals to people they don't want to have them.
Slashdot Mirror
How about requiring correct answers to questions that have significant long term research done establishing the effectiveness in producing non-self-destructive (life), non-drug-addicted & non-violent-crime committing (liberty), happy (happiness), individuals. We have some document somewhere that defines those as important, well-established goals for our society. So if there were specific parenting practices proven with double blind studies to promote those goals, would that be ok to enforce?
Nature has always made sex selection possible, and in fact only relatively recently has the practice been suppressed in most countries.
It's just that it used to be practiced post-birth.
As an alternative to this view, consider the possibility that you might prefilter your sperm, and then use artificial insemination. Do you have the right to do what you want with your sperm?
The main place where you go awry in your argument is your premise that the only justification for forced intervention in others lives is self defense. That's not at all the way we've modeled our society, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find many who would agree with you.
As a simple example, promoting the general welfare is a commonly accepted justification for forced intervention in others lives. For example, we force everyone to pay a tax on gasoline to build roads, and I think you'd struggle to convince me that the majority don't agree with this policy.
So philosophically, you might ask: would it promote the group well being to ban sex selection? One might argue that we all benefit in overally happiness in life if the ratio of men to women is approximately 50/50, and that sex selection will skew the ratio, and that therefore we must ban it.
I suspect they taste more like lizard, which is a bit stringy and bitter.
Cmon mods, this is way funnier than the first post, which got +5, while this is idling at +4.
Wow, overrated on an unmoderated post, awesome job mods!
Wow, overrated on an unmoderated post, awesome job mods!
I swear to god my job as a perl coder was right there on my desk, and Ramanujan was the only person in here with me!
Is Mr. Wizard really a member of the fraternal order of science guys? It's a trademarked name, so if he isn't, he can't claim to be a 'science guy'. Bill Nye, the science guy, is definitely my favorite 'science guy'.
Actually, to my reading of the story, that is what it is about, and the notion that contract employees are always free to move around is also false.
That would totally change the nature of slashdot. Think about what would happen to arguments if you could go back and make little corrections to your logic/premises. You'd be able to make your responders look like fools.
HP is to blame when the contract they wrote is in violation of the law. My favorite example is if they offer you a contract for perpetual slavery in exchange for food for your family. You may sign it out of desperation, but that doesn't make it enforceable in this country, and it doesn't get HP out of owing you back wages and benefits for work performed.
Signing all those contracts is great. Do you know how many, if any of them, are legally enforceable?
The problem is that some companies like to treat contractors like they were employees. Labor worked hard to pass laws differentiating the two for a reason. As a result, they are legally differentiated, and no contract you can sign will ultimately trump those laws.
It works a lot like contracting yourself into slavery: you can't do it, no matter what you sign.
Or as one alternative to unionizing and collective bargaining at every employer in every incident of unfair hiring practices, gang up and pass laws restricting the kind of contracts that can be offered, and legally defining the difference between contract work and employment.
Oh wait, that's what we did, and why this suit has merit.
Exploited is when they hire you as a contractor for the same work that employees are doing at a lower wage level than the employees and without benefits, but then fail also to treat you as a contractor (ie abuse your freedom to effect your job as you see fit).
Were you required to produce animations/whatever according to their methods, or could you do it however you wanted? One implies you were an employee, the other a contractor. These things are legal definitions written into state laws. You can't change them nor sign away your rights magically just by signing a contract. It's just like you can't sell yourself into slavery. If the work you do legally defines you as an employee, then you are an employee, and owed employee benefits, regardless of what illegal contracts you may have signed which said otherwise.
'Expected to perform at the same level' translates to 'expected to work unpaid overtime, in violation of contract'.
Basically, this means Apple is dying.
I have a very slow router you insensitive clod!
Ah, you bring back fond memories of high school parties in 89 and 90.
Thankfully, in sane states you can't do this. Either your time becomes the company's time (and they have to start paying you over time) or your time is your time and they don't get rights to what you do on your time.
It does cost power to push signal to each house. However, they actually pay that cost regardless of whether you receive the signal or not. Typically, a trap is installed which drops the signal just outside your home, or the signal is just encrypted, and they push it to you regardless of whether or not you are supposed to have decryption hardware.
Personally, I have no philosophical issues with people doing whatever they want with signals that arrive in their homes. If cable companies don't like that, they should set up their networks not to deliver signals to people they don't want to have them.
If he's a thief, what did he steal. If they catch him and go to his house, can they get it back?
It claims the c++ front end is as much as 25% faster.