"I am at a loss as to just what sort of job loss the telemarketing association is referring to."
Telemarketing, from what I understant, is the leading field of employment in terms of employing people who were previously on government-funded welfare programs. There will be a tremedous job loss, and it will be lost jobs for the poorest and least-educated people.
Actually, I have some "oil and grease cleaner" from griots garage (http://www.griotsgarage.com/catalog.jsp?&SKU=1112 8) that uses microbes to eat oil.
You just spray on an oil spot (say, on a painted garage floor), or kitchen counter, or when you get greese in clothes, let it sit for 5-15 minutes (keeping wet). The microbes consume the oil-based stuff and produce water-soluable waste so you can just mop/wash it right out.
I give everyone who excercises odd looks. Just stop exercising and accept that your muscles will atrophie and that's just the way it's going to be. You get the odd looks cause you're fighting destiny.
"I think being hit by a car driven by someone who's distracted by a mobile call counts as infringement, don't you?"
Exactly my point - when someone hits you, they've infringed on you (and/or your property) and they should be punished (probably more than they are now-a-days). You don't need cell phone useage to be legislated to do this, it's already against the law to hit someone with your car.
"I do this because it's the right thing to do - I am by no means a meek and mild driver, but I am a safe driver."
This is exactly the responsible driving I'm encouraging. You shouldn't be fined for answering your phone while driving, especially since you're being responsible about it (which it sounds like you are). Maybe we want to legislate against unresponsible use - but that's completely subjective. The only real way to legislate against unreasonable use is to punish the result (accident), not the cause (cell phone use).
Some people would say, just as they're saying cell phone use should be legislated, that meekness and mildness while driving should be enforced. I, for one, think you sould have the breadth to answer your phone and drive in a non-meek and non-mild manor, as long as you don't hit someone.
I actually don't understand if you agree with me or not. Your first sentence makes me think you don't because of the tone...but you talk about something (being hit) that I agree should be an infringement. You then go on to say you do things (answer the phone and drive the way you do) that may cause accidents (and you don't seem to believe that these should be illegal.
Guess it's agreed - direct infringements should be punished, behavior (even stupid behavior) shouldn't.
"Wrong. PBS doesn't even get a quarter of its funding from your paycheck."
So? Even if it gets 2% of it's funding from the federal government that's way too much. Just because less than all of it's funding is from the government doesn't mean it's not being unfairly propped up by the government.
I don't like th farm subsidies either, add that to the list of the many things the government is involved it that it shouldn't be.
"We do, and should legislate certain dangerous behaviors, especially when they potentially impact on other people's safety."
I agree that we do, but I don't agree that we SHOULD. Legislating _behaviors_ and technology/tools is dead wrong, especially when we're not talking about direct infringement, but POTENTIAL (your word) infringement.
"Right, and that will help the family of four you killed how?"
Our laws should not be setup to control people, but to give them the freedom to make choices - and suffer the consequences if they make shitty ones that result in something bad. Make the consequences for killing someone on the highway a lot more serious...and you'll get a lot more peole who will make the right decision (not to talk on phone) not because they're forced to, but out of good judgement.
I'd rather have safety because of responsible people acting that way because they have liberty and live well within its bounds...than have percieved safety because of a tyrany that's made every POSSIBLE cause of harm illegal.
"ie, cell phone calls by drivers should be illegal PERIOD."
Come on, making something that is not a direct infringement on another person illegal is what should be illegal. I should be able to do whatever I want in my car while driving, even if it's really stupid. But, the instant that effects someone else (I hit someone/something) I should be punished accordingly (because I will have then actually infringed on someone).
Studies have shown that computer ownership and fast internet connections correlate to online file swapping. I think we'd be in agreement that computers, and the use of them to make/share MP3s when not violating copyrights, should be legal. It's only when you violate the copyright should you be punished...and you should be punished for violating that copyright, not owning/using a computer.
Same with cell phones. They, and the use of them, should be legal as long as that doesn't infringe on someone else. When you get in an accident cause you made that choice to talk, and accepted responsibility for that choice by making it, you should be punished for hitting someone...not for use/ownership of the phone.
I (unfortunately) see a world approaching where everything "good" will be mandated by law, and everything "bad" or "potentially bad" will be prohibited. You, my fellow man, are leading this march...and I wish you would stop.
"Wouldn't have anything to with them being publicly funded and not beholden to corporate interests?"
Yah, now we just need to make sure we get corporations and other private businesses out of everything else (food, car making, computers, entertainment, housing, etc.) and we'll be living in a corruption free and efficient utopia.
Sorry, but I find your statement completely and utterly absurd (yes, I think socialism is absurd).
If you want a good example of a bad publicly-funded media, look no farther than the US's PBS. It is corrupt, biased, and often times not very interesting or helpful. The shitty part is that I cannot simply stop watching it, hoping others do the same and they lose advertisement funding. No, support is legislated/required and the money stolen out of every paycheck.
Beware of what you desire to be publically provided/funded.
At work we use JabberIM (jabber.com) - and it works great. There is the option to setup your servers to allow "secure" connections and a checkbox on the client SW to "use secure connection" - so everything is then SSL encrypted.
I'm not sure Jabber is really an enemy of Trillian. I use Trillian for MSN, Yahoo, AIM, and ICQ...and JabberIM for Jabber.
The people I know on the first 4 propriatary systems (friends / family) won't be moving anytime soon to something like jabber (what we use at work)...because we know those companies aren't going to move to standardize anytime soon (and your average user doesn't care about open vs. closed systems.
If Trillian adds Jabber support in their product you can bet I'll can JabberIM for Trillian (and it'll entrench Trillian into my life even farther as far as I'm concerned. Afterall, one IM client is better than two.
We're a LONG way off from having the big 4 messaging groups standardize...and if they do Trillian's support of Jabber isn't going to be the fuel. In the mean time, Trillian can make more people happy and make more $$ by supporting it.
Actually, most courts in the nation are not friendly at all to non-compete agreements and they're likewise not so friendly to NDAs when those NDAs act as non-compete agreements (ones that say "you can't use knowledge you gained on the job to do something similar for someone else"). It isn't just CA (though they may be more-so). It's a basic idea that has plenty of president: restricting the free market and trying to ensure your dominance by NDAs and non-competes effectively stifles competition and is something that will not often be enforced.
Oh, yah, maybe I should state my point so you'll get what I'm getting at in the above post. You say the developer gets nothing...that's bullshit. In my example they get a lot - generally lots of money, employability/marketability, and respect.
You asked "what does the developer get?" and presumed "nothing" - which is utterly false. They get to solve a need, help others do the same, and get paid very well to do so.
I guess you're trying to support some "develop it and they will buy it" mentality of developing to develop. Sure, if you give away code that doesn't solve a problem you're getting paid to fix or something you need to solve for yourself anyway - then yah, you're getting nothing from OSS...but I really fail to understand why you're writing a program that doesn't benefit yourself or your employer.
What, do you expect to get paid for the rest of your life to re-implement one piece of code? No, fix a problem, get paid, help others fix the problem and move on. Stop trying to suck as much cash as you can out of one positive thing you've done and get on to filling more needs.
Uuh, I think you're missing the point here. Many people in IT are the ones contributing to OSS because it helps them do a better job. If you solve a problem using OSS you've done a better job at the developer's effort/expense. (And that OSS was probably originally made by someone who needed SW to do X - a need of theirs or their employer - and they were rewarded for making it work.)
But them you're likely to see some way to improve on or build on the OSS, which you then implement, and give back to the community. Now you've developed something that helped you...and you've helped others by removing their need to make that incremental improvement.
Now someone else gets to use your creation and improve on it and you get to reap the benefits., but improve on that OSS and hand it back to the community.
Sure, there are leaches, but that's OK because the general outcome of this is that people who need to get things done for themselves or their employers can now get it done w/o writing the code from scratch or paying gobs of cash for it.
All the people I work with in IT who fit the above (contribute to OSS) are the highest-paid and most-respected technical people in our IT organization. It's because they know how to get things done, these things get done w/o a bunch of license fees, and if things run pretty smoothly because them (and other people like them) are constantly using and improving the SW.
Wait, maybe I was a little quick to jump on the $1 is too much bandwagon. This poster has it dead-on: if it's property, there should be a tax on it to cover the costs of enforcing the laws regarding it (just like normal property tax)...
Thought about it a minute and have two more changes to make this make more sense.
1. Change the fee to $0.01. That's right, one penny, because individuals should not have to pay for intellectual property they worked to create in the first place. Maybe even reduce the amount to nothing so the government doesn't have to process a bunch of $0.01 checks (cause we pay for that processing). Subcontract a few registrars...and require that the copyright holders, after this period, "check in" every year.
2. 50 years is too long, 20 years is too long. Make it 5 years before this starts.
I think this is a wonderful idea. It speaks exactly at the desire to not let works disappear. Yet, it's not going to be widely opposed because it doesn't make it too tough for corporations and those who care about their copyrights to keep them as long as they can now.
But, I must ask: Why 50 years???
Starting it after 20 seems just as reasonable to me (if I'm thinking of the copyright holders' interests) but it would keep a lot more non-commercial, unattended information from disappearing into the unknown.
"which [sample full song before purchase] I do for free on the radio now."
I don't know what radio station you listen to, but most of the ones around here are owned by Clear Channel (they suck). The independent ones still play their playlists over and over. While better than Suck Channel stations, the independents sill don't offer enough variety if you really want to sample music.
IANAL, but a lawyer friend of min was talking to me about this the other day. They're virtually unenforcible much of the time. He had several examples where the courts threw out non-compete agreements, even when there were negative effects to the company the non-compete was signed with.
In a case like this (no harm to volt, wasn't soliciting a competing job) it is practically a non-existant case for Volt. The fact that this is considered news-worthy is beyond me.
It's gotta be that this poor sap doesn't understand the law (and hasn't contacted a lawyer to tell him to go back to work) and called the journalist who was likewise ignorant (or just needed a story).
Just go to work and sue the pants off Volt if they try to enforce the non-compete.
Problem is that without rules about "proper" ways of obtaining evidence you'd revert back to a society where police just let themselves into your home, w/o probable cause, etc. I don't want the police to smash and grab - let's leave that for the criminals.
"Hrm... (Score:1) by Duncan3 (10537) on Tuesday May 20, @04:30PM (#6001321) So they arent stamping ID #'s into all the parts so that any stolen Segway is a trackable segway?"
Slashdot Mirror
"I am at a loss as to just what sort of job loss the telemarketing association is referring to."
Telemarketing, from what I understant, is the leading field of employment in terms of employing people who were previously on government-funded welfare programs. There will be a tremedous job loss, and it will be lost jobs for the poorest and least-educated people.
Actually, I have some "oil and grease cleaner" from griots garage (http://www.griotsgarage.com/catalog.jsp?&SKU=1112 8) that uses microbes to eat oil.
You just spray on an oil spot (say, on a painted garage floor), or kitchen counter, or when you get greese in clothes, let it sit for 5-15 minutes (keeping wet). The microbes consume the oil-based stuff and produce water-soluable waste so you can just mop/wash it right out.
Kinda pricy, but works well.
"I get alot of odd looks..."
I give everyone who excercises odd looks. Just stop exercising and accept that your muscles will atrophie and that's just the way it's going to be. You get the odd looks cause you're fighting destiny.
Don't get me wrong, I think Davis should be recalled as much as the next man...but maybe these wonderful folks should be next in line.
I'm going to get flammed by some idiot Davis supporter...or at least modded as a troll by one.
"I think being hit by a car driven by someone who's distracted by a mobile call counts as infringement, don't you?"
Exactly my point - when someone hits you, they've infringed on you (and/or your property) and they should be punished (probably more than they are now-a-days). You don't need cell phone useage to be legislated to do this, it's already against the law to hit someone with your car.
"I do this because it's the right thing to do - I am by no means a meek and mild driver, but I am a safe driver."
This is exactly the responsible driving I'm encouraging. You shouldn't be fined for answering your phone while driving, especially since you're being responsible about it (which it sounds like you are). Maybe we want to legislate against unresponsible use - but that's completely subjective. The only real way to legislate against unreasonable use is to punish the result (accident), not the cause (cell phone use).
Some people would say, just as they're saying cell phone use should be legislated, that meekness and mildness while driving should be enforced. I, for one, think you sould have the breadth to answer your phone and drive in a non-meek and non-mild manor, as long as you don't hit someone.
I actually don't understand if you agree with me or not. Your first sentence makes me think you don't because of the tone...but you talk about something (being hit) that I agree should be an infringement. You then go on to say you do things (answer the phone and drive the way you do) that may cause accidents (and you don't seem to believe that these should be illegal.
Guess it's agreed - direct infringements should be punished, behavior (even stupid behavior) shouldn't.
"Wrong. PBS doesn't even get a quarter of its funding from your paycheck."
So? Even if it gets 2% of it's funding from the federal government that's way too much. Just because less than all of it's funding is from the government doesn't mean it's not being unfairly propped up by the government.
I don't like th farm subsidies either, add that to the list of the many things the government is involved it that it shouldn't be.
"We do, and should legislate certain dangerous behaviors, especially when they potentially impact on other people's safety."
I agree that we do, but I don't agree that we SHOULD. Legislating _behaviors_ and technology/tools is dead wrong, especially when we're not talking about direct infringement, but POTENTIAL (your word) infringement.
"Right, and that will help the family of four you killed how?"
Our laws should not be setup to control people, but to give them the freedom to make choices - and suffer the consequences if they make shitty ones that result in something bad. Make the consequences for killing someone on the highway a lot more serious...and you'll get a lot more peole who will make the right decision (not to talk on phone) not because they're forced to, but out of good judgement.
I'd rather have safety because of responsible people acting that way because they have liberty and live well within its bounds...than have percieved safety because of a tyrany that's made every POSSIBLE cause of harm illegal.
"ie, cell phone calls by drivers should be illegal PERIOD."
Come on, making something that is not a direct infringement on another person illegal is what should be illegal. I should be able to do whatever I want in my car while driving, even if it's really stupid. But, the instant that effects someone else (I hit someone/something) I should be punished accordingly (because I will have then actually infringed on someone).
Studies have shown that computer ownership and fast internet connections correlate to online file swapping. I think we'd be in agreement that computers, and the use of them to make/share MP3s when not violating copyrights, should be legal. It's only when you violate the copyright should you be punished...and you should be punished for violating that copyright, not owning/using a computer.
Same with cell phones. They, and the use of them, should be legal as long as that doesn't infringe on someone else. When you get in an accident cause you made that choice to talk, and accepted responsibility for that choice by making it, you should be punished for hitting someone...not for use/ownership of the phone.
I (unfortunately) see a world approaching where everything "good" will be mandated by law, and everything "bad" or "potentially bad" will be prohibited. You, my fellow man, are leading this march...and I wish you would stop.
"Wouldn't have anything to with them being publicly funded and not beholden to corporate interests?"
Yah, now we just need to make sure we get corporations and other private businesses out of everything else (food, car making, computers, entertainment, housing, etc.) and we'll be living in a corruption free and efficient utopia.
Sorry, but I find your statement completely and utterly absurd (yes, I think socialism is absurd).
If you want a good example of a bad publicly-funded media, look no farther than the US's PBS. It is corrupt, biased, and often times not very interesting or helpful. The shitty part is that I cannot simply stop watching it, hoping others do the same and they lose advertisement funding. No, support is legislated/required and the money stolen out of every paycheck.
Beware of what you desire to be publically provided/funded.
At work we use JabberIM (jabber.com) - and it works great. There is the option to setup your servers to allow "secure" connections and a checkbox on the client SW to "use secure connection" - so everything is then SSL encrypted.
And when is this next release? I've been waiting for Jabber support for so long now.
I'm not sure Jabber is really an enemy of Trillian. I use Trillian for MSN, Yahoo, AIM, and ICQ...and JabberIM for Jabber.
The people I know on the first 4 propriatary systems (friends / family) won't be moving anytime soon to something like jabber (what we use at work)...because we know those companies aren't going to move to standardize anytime soon (and your average user doesn't care about open vs. closed systems.
If Trillian adds Jabber support in their product you can bet I'll can JabberIM for Trillian (and it'll entrench Trillian into my life even farther as far as I'm concerned. Afterall, one IM client is better than two.
We're a LONG way off from having the big 4 messaging groups standardize...and if they do Trillian's support of Jabber isn't going to be the fuel. In the mean time, Trillian can make more people happy and make more $$ by supporting it.
Just IMHO.
Actually, most courts in the nation are not friendly at all to non-compete agreements and they're likewise not so friendly to NDAs when those NDAs act as non-compete agreements (ones that say "you can't use knowledge you gained on the job to do something similar for someone else"). It isn't just CA (though they may be more-so). It's a basic idea that has plenty of president: restricting the free market and trying to ensure your dominance by NDAs and non-competes effectively stifles competition and is something that will not often be enforced.
Oh, yah, maybe I should state my point so you'll get what I'm getting at in the above post. You say the developer gets nothing...that's bullshit. In my example they get a lot - generally lots of money, employability/marketability, and respect.
You asked "what does the developer get?" and presumed "nothing" - which is utterly false. They get to solve a need, help others do the same, and get paid very well to do so.
I guess you're trying to support some "develop it and they will buy it" mentality of developing to develop. Sure, if you give away code that doesn't solve a problem you're getting paid to fix or something you need to solve for yourself anyway - then yah, you're getting nothing from OSS...but I really fail to understand why you're writing a program that doesn't benefit yourself or your employer.
What, do you expect to get paid for the rest of your life to re-implement one piece of code? No, fix a problem, get paid, help others fix the problem and move on. Stop trying to suck as much cash as you can out of one positive thing you've done and get on to filling more needs.
Uuh, I think you're missing the point here. Many people in IT are the ones contributing to OSS because it helps them do a better job. If you solve a problem using OSS you've done a better job at the developer's effort/expense. (And that OSS was probably originally made by someone who needed SW to do X - a need of theirs or their employer - and they were rewarded for making it work.)
But them you're likely to see some way to improve on or build on the OSS, which you then implement, and give back to the community. Now you've developed something that helped you...and you've helped others by removing their need to make that incremental improvement.
Now someone else gets to use your creation and improve on it and you get to reap the benefits., but improve on that OSS and hand it back to the community.
Sure, there are leaches, but that's OK because the general outcome of this is that people who need to get things done for themselves or their employers can now get it done w/o writing the code from scratch or paying gobs of cash for it.
All the people I work with in IT who fit the above (contribute to OSS) are the highest-paid and most-respected technical people in our IT organization. It's because they know how to get things done, these things get done w/o a bunch of license fees, and if things run pretty smoothly because them (and other people like them) are constantly using and improving the SW.
he actually has reason and logic behind his opinion
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=66373&cid= 6108548
You make sense my man. I like the way you think.
Thought about it a minute and have two more changes to make this make more sense.
1. Change the fee to $0.01. That's right, one penny, because individuals should not have to pay for intellectual property they worked to create in the first place. Maybe even reduce the amount to nothing so the government doesn't have to process a bunch of $0.01 checks (cause we pay for that processing). Subcontract a few registrars...and require that the copyright holders, after this period, "check in" every year.
2. 50 years is too long, 20 years is too long. Make it 5 years before this starts.
I think this is a wonderful idea. It speaks exactly at the desire to not let works disappear. Yet, it's not going to be widely opposed because it doesn't make it too tough for corporations and those who care about their copyrights to keep them as long as they can now.
But, I must ask: Why 50 years???
Starting it after 20 seems just as reasonable to me (if I'm thinking of the copyright holders' interests) but it would keep a lot more non-commercial, unattended information from disappearing into the unknown.
"which [sample full song before purchase] I do for free on the radio now."
I don't know what radio station you listen to, but most of the ones around here are owned by Clear Channel (they suck). The independent ones still play their playlists over and over. While better than Suck Channel stations, the independents sill don't offer enough variety if you really want to sample music.
In a case like this (no harm to volt, wasn't soliciting a competing job) it is practically a non-existant case for Volt. The fact that this is considered news-worthy is beyond me.
It's gotta be that this poor sap doesn't understand the law (and hasn't contacted a lawyer to tell him to go back to work) and called the journalist who was likewise ignorant (or just needed a story).
Just go to work and sue the pants off Volt if they try to enforce the non-compete.
Problem is that without rules about "proper" ways of obtaining evidence you'd revert back to a society where police just let themselves into your home, w/o probable cause, etc. I don't want the police to smash and grab - let's leave that for the criminals.
"Hrm... (Score:1)
by Duncan3 (10537) on Tuesday May 20, @04:30PM (#6001321)
So they arent stamping ID #'s into all the parts so that any stolen Segway is a trackable segway?"
Uuh, Yes they are, RTFA.
Sorry, but just cause some reporter says you can't hot-wire it, doesn't mean it can't be done.
I guess some people do believe everything they read - and I thought it was just a figure of speech.