Yes -- the corporate officers are potentially criminally liable for the acts of the corporation. Assuming that the underlings acted responsibly and according to company policy and direction, then the criminal liability will run upstream, probably to the COO. (Of the building operator, if that wasn't obvious; typically the same as the building owner.)
Incorporation is not a magic shield, however much the anti-corporatists would like you to think so.
That is why there are some missing areas in the photos from Curiosity. Those areas, intentionally omitted, are where my NAS device is bolted to Curiosity's frame, just behind the SAM inlets. High latency, but good geodiversity.
Yes, you are -- and have been for decades. 8 USC 1304(e) 264(e) requires all aliens to carry at all times their registration document -- these days that's their I-94 for non-immigrants or their I-551 for permanent residents.
IMAP represents the only decent way to move messages crossplatform from message store to message store without latering or wrapping them. I frequently move things from one "Sent" folder on one server to another, etc.
Lemley's distinction also points to the unusual fact that in IP, traditional liberals are often calling for less and less government, while conservatives demand regulation in order to protect their exclusive right to use their intellectual creations.
I don't think this is all that suprising. Traditional liberals tend to believe in property redistribution, and traditional conservatives tend to favor property rights.
The apparent reversal is simply that with physical goods, more government is perceived as the way to take goods from their creators under a cloak of legitimacy, while with intellectual goods, more government is perceived as the way to prevent "taking" goods.
Does it strike anyone else as... interesting... that the Director of the "Global Coral Reef Alliance" is also the registrant of, and one of the pricipals of, the commercial organization they're proposing as the solution?
But seriously, the following commercials have got to go: [...] -commercials for medication that don't tell you what the hell it's for
Incidentally, this one isn't the advertisers's fault. In the US, the FDA severely limits what you can say about a drug in direct-to-consumer advertising unless you include substanitial chunks of the product insert (i.e. the fine print.)
For an example, take a look at any magazine ad for a prescription drug -- the front will likely tell you what it's for, but the back will be miles of fine print. They were required to buy that second page of fine print, to be allowed to print the first.
Indeed -- One of the reasons I don't use the skip-30-seconds button, and have suggested a fast-forward-at-60x-to-next-all-black-frame feature is to allow me to watch for "interesting" commercials.
I will, for example, invariably stop and go back to a Jack In The Box ad -- the worst of them deserves a funny=7 rating and the best are full-on funny=10.
>> As for whether Southerners are real men or not, there is a reason the North won the war, ya know. > In the end, sheer numbers (money & men) won out.
Industrialization.
> There is a reason that the South held off the Northern invasion forces for five years, y'know?
The new HD DirecTiVo is supposd to have two satellite tuners and 2 OTA tuners, so that addresses (to some extent) your issue.
A number of us have been suggesting for a while that this is the wrong approach -- instead, TiVos should be able to cluster, with the individual resources pooled (tuners, space, etc) against one mater ToDo list, one recording list, etc.
The entity called a "notary" in the U.S. is a different thing from the entity called a "notary" in most countries based on the Napoleonic code. (Wow -- two different things with the same name! That never happens, does it?) With even a moment's thought this possibility should have occurred to you.
In fact, "notary" in most Napoleonic code counties is a specialization you get after getting your law degree and admission to the bar, versus the common law notary (as in the U.S.) where it's darn near any person willing to swear witness.
This article (though containing some odd html, and focused on Quebec) provides a decent overview (and took me about 30 seconds to find.)
This is actually very cleanly structured, via a process called "reexamination". There's some info on the USPTO site about this, but the best in-context explanation I found (in a quick google) is here, where they discuss reexamination in the context of a complete challenge-and-response cycle.
RIM's business is built on having a solution that works. The user doesn't have to "hotsync", "synchronize folders", "send outbox", "manage pending mail", "send and receive", blah blah blah user-actions-to-make-up-for-poor-design.
There's competition out the wazoo out there, from MS to Palm to Good to Danger -- they Just Don't Get It. (Or aren't willing to sweat the details, which amounts to the same thing when you come to market.) Imagine how much less far we'd be if well-designed solutions didn't win in the marketplace.
--Laird
(In any case, the NTP patents aren't on basic concepts, but (IIRC) on aspects of keyboard design. It would appear that the judge issues such a harsh injunction because of RIM's egregious violation and attitude.)
The assumption you make above that you have freedom to negotiate you work relationship is a false one because one party to the relationship holds all the cards as shown by the situation that started this story (12/7 and no overtime).
Rubbish.
Any number of posters have suggested multiple choices that the original questioner has, from going to the employer and asking for consideration, to banding together and negotiating this situation as a group, to quitting.
So long as you have the freedom to quit, so long as you have the choice to work more if that's important to you, it's a free situation.
(Let me deal with a straw man that some will throw up: that the employee can't quit because they have bills etc, or because other jobs are hard to find. If they have bills that are that close to their cash flow, then they have made choices that buying things is more important than having the savings to permit quitting to look for better employment. They may be in a momentary crunch, but they put themselves there. If other jobs are hard to find, then the value of their work is less; what they have to trade in a negotiation is of lesser value.)
If it weren't for the sudden-death thing, I'd put a hole in my head.
If it weren't for the low pay, I'd be a ditchdigger.
Do you really not see the problems in your statement?
First off, you're saying that jobs near your present location have a higher value to you than jobs far away, so you choose to have a nearby job. In other words, the nearby job is worth more than they far-away-but-hypothetically-better job. Wow, you made a value choice! Congratulations -- welcome to adulthood.
Secondly, why is it a hassle to find work there? Because of the government's regulation of employment conditions -- i.e. creating an unfree market: just what so many here are arging for.
What you really mean is that you have less practical freedom, because your government removes your freedom to enter into contracts to work more, or less, or however you please.
Most professional workers in the United States are in a relationship known informally as "salaried", or more formally as "exempt". In an exempt relationship, you are presumed to have the freedom to negotiate the individual work relationship (rather than being forced into the mold that works for others.)
If you are not being compensated appropriately to your delivered output, then no, you shouldn't work more. In fact, you should seek employment elsewhere, because that employer is not in a fair compensation relationship with you.
Please note the use of the term "compensated". This is intentional; compensation consists of "paid" and a bunch of other things, some material, some less so, some tangible, some less so. When you enter into an employment relationship, you also have a responsibility to determine what the work will be, what the total compensation will be, and whether the employer's attitude toward occasional variances in each matches with yours.
I am both an employer, and an employee. As an employer, I spend no small amount of time considering the non-salary portions of compensation. These range from the mundane and expected (health benefits, etc.) to the non-obvious (should I put in floor-to-ceiling windows, should I put in skylights, should I get flatpanels for all, should everybody have direct-dial numbers...)
Let's take that last example: do you realize that a direct-dial number is a part of your compensation? Just like fresh paint, or skylights, or the employee workout room and lockers, it's an expenditure I make, without direct bottom-line benefit, that is a part of the pleasant environment I choose to provide in order to attract talented, high-performance people.
If those are things you value, you'll want to work for me; if not, you'll weight those less than other things. Nonetheless, they're part of total comp.
More to the original point, as a salaried employee, you should arrive at a conclusion, if not an explicit understanding, about your employer's attitude toward Death March projects. Some will see them as a normal part of business, some as an occasional necessary evil for which you're already being compensated, some as a rarity which should be extraordinarity recognized (comp time, bonuses, celebration trips, etc.) Some may or may not explicity compensate, but may consider your willingness to jump in as a component of your personal performance and advancement potential (an indirect portion of your compensation.) Again, these things are all part of the total compensation environment.
Just to make sure I get some Flamebait moderation (if I haven't already earned it by suggesting that free-agentry is good), this makes very clear where unions (or union-analogues (Betriebsrat, worker's collectives, etc.)) can harm the individal worker as much as help. Dealing with a collective bargaining group, the employer only needs to satisfy the collective-bargaining representatives, not the individual workers. They are not free to offer more narrow-band incentives (e.g. onsite daycare, because they want to make my workplace attractive to single parents) or recognize individual situations (allowing job-sharing, etc. etc.) unless they benefit everybody. ("Tyranny of the majority" is the customary phrase.)
On the worker's part, in a collective bargaining situation, they are not free to strike an individual bargain with their employer. Recent example: a good friend bargained to take their raise in vacation time instead of cash. Their employer accepted with alacrity. That person bargained for what was of higher value to them individually.
What do you think that functionality and ease of use is built upon?
An OS that nobody* ever sees or cares about. An OS that may (or may not) have enabled the developers to deliver this functionality on this schedule, or faster, or slower. People were making products long before OSS, or OSs for that matter; it's all about the features. Only at a secondary-effect level is it about the tools used to achieve the end.
If... mass produced... just a consumer.
And by "just a consumer" you mean those other 6.3 billion people?
(
Okay, having said that, let's now go another direction. That the TiVo product is built on an OSS has, in fact, had a couple of primary effects:
adoption
Having participated in several of the TiVo-related online communities almost since their inception, there is zero doubt in my mind that a considerable population of early adopters purchased TiVo on religious grounds; i.e. because it was OSS based. Amplifying that effect is an associated characteristic that most such people have, that of being committed evangelists. There is similarly no doubt in my mind that this evangelism has had an additional substantial effect.
community enhancements
The user community has clearly had an extension and enhancement effect on the TiVo product that would have been unlikely were it not based on a commonly available OS, and debatably less likely were it not based on a nerd-oriented OS. This has a direct effect of increasing use and acceptance (those who might not buy the product if, for example, the storage was not expanded.) As well, we can hypothesize an indirect effect of driving the company toward faster innovation and perhaps adoption of particular features, based on the community deveopment.
Just the opposite. "Cathedral" projects that intend to be commercially successful have design teams that have breadth -- not just nerds, but squishy people as well. If they don't, they won't have the usability aspects that are key to marketplace success.
"Bazaar" project contributors may be a larger team, but they are a self-selecting group of contributors that tend to be monotonic.
("I'm going to make broad, sweeping generalizations and strong, declarative statements, because otherwise I'll be here all night and this document will be four times longer and much less fun to read. Take it all with a grain of salt." --Steven Owens)
Since you don't like government interference in your business, I hope that your health care firm will give up access to funding in the form of Medicare, Medicaid, NIH research funds, etc. It would be terrible if you were to behave hypocritically by taking lots of government money and then turn around and complain about government regulations.
Which is precisely what many are doing. (Google on "refuse medicare" for examples.)
Your answer, however, indicates precisely the problem: the presumtion that no business, and in particular no healthcare business, can exist without government aid. Pfui.
Slashdot Mirror
The national ACLU, post-Heller, has tried to stake out a position next to the the dead armadillos, but several state affiliates have consistently held (and local and national have occasionally defended) an individual-rights position.
Yes -- the corporate officers are potentially criminally liable for the acts of the corporation. Assuming that the underlings acted responsibly and according to company policy and direction, then the criminal liability will run upstream, probably to the COO. (Of the building operator, if that wasn't obvious; typically the same as the building owner.)
Incorporation is not a magic shield, however much the anti-corporatists would like you to think so.
It's their cable plant (maintenance burden, etc.) If you don't like it, use an antenna.
That is why there are some missing areas in the photos from Curiosity. Those areas, intentionally omitted, are where my NAS device is bolted to Curiosity's frame, just behind the SAM inlets. High latency, but good geodiversity.
Yes, you are -- and have been for decades. 8 USC 1304(e) 264(e) requires all aliens to carry at all times their registration document -- these days that's their I-94 for non-immigrants or their I-551 for permanent residents.
TheOatmeal has some wisdom on this topic.
IMAP represents the only decent way to move messages crossplatform from message store to message store without latering or wrapping them. I frequently move things from one "Sent" folder on one server to another, etc.
Well... that was the whole idea behind UCITA, folks, but the baby got thrown out with the bathwater.
Lemley's distinction also points to the unusual fact that in IP, traditional liberals are often calling for less and less government, while conservatives demand regulation in order to protect their exclusive right to use their intellectual creations.
I don't think this is all that suprising. Traditional liberals tend to believe in property redistribution, and traditional conservatives tend to favor property rights.
The apparent reversal is simply that with physical goods, more government is perceived as the way to take goods from their creators under a cloak of legitimacy, while with intellectual goods, more government is perceived as the way to prevent "taking" goods.
Does it strike anyone else as... interesting... that the Director of the "Global Coral Reef Alliance" is also the registrant of, and one of the pricipals of, the commercial organization they're proposing as the solution?
Hmmm.
--Laird
But seriously, the following commercials have got to go:
[...]
-commercials for medication that don't tell you what the hell it's for
Incidentally, this one isn't the advertisers's fault. In the US, the FDA severely limits what you can say about a drug in direct-to-consumer advertising unless you include substanitial chunks of the product insert (i.e. the fine print.)
For an example, take a look at any magazine ad for a prescription drug -- the front will likely tell you what it's for, but the back will be miles of fine print. They were required to buy that second page of fine print, to be allowed to print the first.
Inagine what that would look like on your TV.
--Laird
Indeed -- One of the reasons I don't use the skip-30-seconds button, and have suggested a fast-forward-at-60x-to-next-all-black-frame feature is to allow me to watch for "interesting" commercials.
I will, for example, invariably stop and go back to a Jack In The Box ad -- the worst of them deserves a funny=7 rating and the best are full-on funny=10.
--Laird
>> As for whether Southerners are real men or not, there is a reason the North won the war, ya know.
> In the end, sheer numbers (money & men) won out.
Industrialization.
> There is a reason that the South held off the Northern invasion forces for five years, y'know?
Marksmanship. (See Industrialization, lack of.)
The new HD DirecTiVo is supposd to have two satellite tuners and 2 OTA tuners, so that addresses (to some extent) your issue.
A number of us have been suggesting for a while that this is the wrong approach -- instead, TiVos should be able to cluster, with the individual resources pooled (tuners, space, etc) against one mater ToDo list, one recording list, etc.
Please activate brain before engaging keyboard.
The entity called a "notary" in the U.S. is a different thing from the entity called a "notary" in most countries based on the Napoleonic code. (Wow -- two different things with the same name! That never happens, does it?) With even a moment's thought this possibility should have occurred to you.
In fact, "notary" in most Napoleonic code counties is a specialization you get after getting your law degree and admission to the bar, versus the common law notary (as in the U.S.) where it's darn near any person willing to swear witness.
This article (though containing some odd html, and focused on Quebec) provides a decent overview (and took me about 30 seconds to find.)
This is actually very cleanly structured, via a process called "reexamination". There's some info on the USPTO site about this, but the best in-context explanation I found (in a quick google) is here, where they discuss reexamination in the context of a complete challenge-and-response cycle.
Nope.
RIM's business is built on having a solution that works. The user doesn't have to "hotsync", "synchronize folders", "send outbox", "manage pending mail", "send and receive", blah blah blah user-actions-to-make-up-for-poor-design.
There's competition out the wazoo out there, from MS to Palm to Good to Danger -- they Just Don't Get It. (Or aren't willing to sweat the details, which amounts to the same thing when you come to market.) Imagine how much less far we'd be if well-designed solutions didn't win in the marketplace.
--Laird
(In any case, the NTP patents aren't on basic concepts, but (IIRC) on aspects of keyboard design. It would appear that the judge issues such a harsh injunction because of RIM's egregious violation and attitude.)
The assumption you make above that you have freedom to negotiate you work relationship is a false one because one party to the relationship holds all the cards as shown by the situation that started this story (12/7 and no overtime).
Rubbish.
Any number of posters have suggested multiple choices that the original questioner has, from going to the employer and asking for consideration, to banding together and negotiating this situation as a group, to quitting.
So long as you have the freedom to quit, so long as you have the choice to work more if that's important to you, it's a free situation.
(Let me deal with a straw man that some will throw up: that the employee can't quit because they have bills etc, or because other jobs are hard to find. If they have bills that are that close to their cash flow, then they have made choices that buying things is more important than having the savings to permit quitting to look for better employment. They may be in a momentary crunch, but they put themselves there. If other jobs are hard to find, then the value of their work is less; what they have to trade in a negotiation is of lesser value.)
Great jumping Jehsaphat!
If it weren't for the sudden-death thing, I'd put a hole in my head.
If it weren't for the low pay, I'd be a ditchdigger.
Do you really not see the problems in your statement?
First off, you're saying that jobs near your present location have a higher value to you than jobs far away, so you choose to have a nearby job. In other words, the nearby job is worth more than they far-away-but-hypothetically-better job. Wow, you made a value choice! Congratulations -- welcome to adulthood.
Secondly, why is it a hassle to find work there? Because of the government's regulation of employment conditions -- i.e. creating an unfree market: just what so many here are arging for.
What you really mean is that you have less practical freedom, because your government removes your freedom to enter into contracts to work more, or less, or however you please.
Most professional workers in the United States are in a relationship known informally as "salaried", or more formally as "exempt". In an exempt relationship, you are presumed to have the freedom to negotiate the individual work relationship (rather than being forced into the mold that works for others.)
If you are not being compensated appropriately to your delivered output, then no, you shouldn't work more. In fact, you should seek employment elsewhere, because that employer is not in a fair compensation relationship with you.
Please note the use of the term "compensated". This is intentional; compensation consists of "paid" and a bunch of other things, some material, some less so, some tangible, some less so. When you enter into an employment relationship, you also have a responsibility to determine what the work will be, what the total compensation will be, and whether the employer's attitude toward occasional variances in each matches with yours.
I am both an employer, and an employee. As an employer, I spend no small amount of time considering the non-salary portions of compensation. These range from the mundane and expected (health benefits, etc.) to the non-obvious (should I put in floor-to-ceiling windows, should I put in skylights, should I get flatpanels for all, should everybody have direct-dial numbers...)
Let's take that last example: do you realize that a direct-dial number is a part of your compensation? Just like fresh paint, or skylights, or the employee workout room and lockers, it's an expenditure I make, without direct bottom-line benefit, that is a part of the pleasant environment I choose to provide in order to attract talented, high-performance people.
If those are things you value, you'll want to work for me; if not, you'll weight those less than other things. Nonetheless, they're part of total comp.
More to the original point, as a salaried employee, you should arrive at a conclusion, if not an explicit understanding, about your employer's attitude toward Death March projects. Some will see them as a normal part of business, some as an occasional necessary evil for which you're already being compensated, some as a rarity which should be extraordinarity recognized (comp time, bonuses, celebration trips, etc.) Some may or may not explicity compensate, but may consider your willingness to jump in as a component of your personal performance and advancement potential (an indirect portion of your compensation.) Again, these things are all part of the total compensation environment.
Just to make sure I get some Flamebait moderation (if I haven't already earned it by suggesting that free-agentry is good), this makes very clear where unions (or union-analogues (Betriebsrat, worker's collectives, etc.)) can harm the individal worker as much as help. Dealing with a collective bargaining group, the employer only needs to satisfy the collective-bargaining representatives, not the individual workers. They are not free to offer more narrow-band incentives (e.g. onsite daycare, because they want to make my workplace attractive to single parents) or recognize individual situations (allowing job-sharing, etc. etc.) unless they benefit everybody. ("Tyranny of the majority" is the customary phrase.)
On the worker's part, in a collective bargaining situation, they are not free to strike an individual bargain with their employer. Recent example: a good friend bargained to take their raise in vacation time instead of cash. Their employer accepted with alacrity. That person bargained for what was of higher value to them individually.
An OS that nobody* ever sees or cares about. An OS that may (or may not) have enabled the developers to deliver this functionality on this schedule, or faster, or slower. People were making products long before OSS, or OSs for that matter; it's all about the features. Only at a secondary-effect level is it about the tools used to achieve the end.
If
And by "just a consumer" you mean those other 6.3 billion people?
(
Okay, having said that, let's now go another direction. That the TiVo product is built on an OSS has, in fact, had a couple of primary effects:
Having participated in several of the TiVo-related online communities almost since their inception, there is zero doubt in my mind that a considerable population of early adopters purchased TiVo on religious grounds; i.e. because it was OSS based. Amplifying that effect is an associated characteristic that most such people have, that of being committed evangelists. There is similarly no doubt in my mind that this evangelism has had an additional substantial effect.
The user community has clearly had an extension and enhancement effect on the TiVo product that would have been unlikely were it not based on a commonly available OS, and debatably less likely were it not based on a nerd-oriented OS. This has a direct effect of increasing use and acceptance (those who might not buy the product if, for example, the storage was not expanded.) As well, we can hypothesize an indirect effect of driving the company toward faster innovation and perhaps adoption of particular features, based on the community deveopment.
)
Psst. TiVo runs Linux. Pass it on.
Pssst. Nobody cares -- it's all about the functionality and ease-of-use. Pass it on; this is what the OSS community seems to continually not get.
(For high enough values of nobody; i.e. the population that doesn't read Slashdot.)
Just the opposite. "Cathedral" projects that intend to be commercially successful have design teams that have breadth -- not just nerds, but squishy people as well. If they don't, they won't have the usability aspects that are key to marketplace success.
"Bazaar" project contributors may be a larger team, but they are a self-selecting group of contributors that tend to be monotonic.
("I'm going to make broad, sweeping generalizations and strong, declarative statements, because otherwise I'll be here all night and this document will be four times longer and much less fun to read. Take it all with a grain of salt." --Steven Owens)
Which is precisely what many are doing. (Google on "refuse medicare" for examples.)
Your answer, however, indicates precisely the problem: the presumtion that no business, and in particular no healthcare business, can exist without government aid. Pfui.