Kasparov, Yabloko and the like hold 1-5% support as far as anyone can tell, and are a distant fourth in line as far as potential alternatives to Putin.
Yep! Just like Ron Paul, who popularity seems to be massive and growing, yet according to the official vote counts he's an nobody, in last place.
What is really horrible is that this state of affairs isn't an accident. It was designed that way, to be a Parliment of Tyrants. When the UN was proposed and designed most nation states were unfree hellholes
And what's changed?
So lets turn over control of the Internet to the same bunch of misfits who thought seating Iran to an organization to pontificate on human rights was a good idea. And lets not forget Libya having to get booted out of the Human Rights Council when Kadaffy's body count got so high even the other tyrants were getting embarrased.
Let's not forget the good ole U.S., who has more slaves ('inmates', aka prisoners) than any other country in the world.
So oh heck yea, lets turn the Internet over to these thugs, what could possibly go wrong when the Axis of Evil starts writing the RFCs for the Evil Bit and it ain't April Fools.
I assure you, the U.S. government and their 'first world' buddies are MORE than capable of making the Internet a shithole all on their own, with or without the Axis of Evil's help.
Tell me citizen, what is the practical difference in the end result if you shout "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater, whether or not there is actually a fire? Do you think the theater evacuation will be calmer and safer if there IS an actual fire, with billowing smoke and flames to boot, vs you just making one up?
Sure about that? A local pho restaraunt was sold to new owners. After the sale, the food quality dropped. I noticed it, all my friends noticed it.
Food quality has nothing to do with the recipe, which did not likely change. The thing about food is, the end product varies from chef to chef, simply due to the differences in how its prepared; this is especially true in smaller establishments who don't have a system established for ensuring consistency and quality.
While technically the old owners sold their recipes, I suspect that they weren't the real recipes. If that's not true, the new owner's cut back on ingredients or something.
That's a much more likely possibility.
Why in the world would a restaurant owner be motivated to intentionally destroy something he created (the restaurant and its image) by giving the new owner false recipes? That doesn't make any sense at all.
And you're quite wrong about recipes not being coveted assets.
Just because somebody covets something doesn't mean it has actual value to anyone else, or that release of said info would cause any actual harm to said person/company. Anyone with enough money and time can figure out the exact recipe for a commercial food item, or damn close, given the right equipment/knowledge and representative examples to reverse engineer. Do you think the McDonalds executive team stays up at night sweating with worry that someone will figure out their Big Mac recipe and start selling knock off Big Macs, undercutting their sales? Of course not.
This is because the real value is their name (brand), and all the thought and knowledge that went into creating that brand, and the procedures/supply chain necessary to make and serve food quickly on such a scale, not the specific items they sell. In fact I'm pretty sure you can find a book out there somewhere that will tell you how to make a Big Mac. But if someone wanted to make a business out of selling Big Mac clones, they couldn't, because nobody would buy it, plus McDonalds would sue them into oblivion.
"Would you work for a company that forced its employees to join a social network?"
Of course not.
It's really sad how (based on responses to this story) there are apparently lots of slashdot posters out there who are so desperate for a master to pull their chains, and toss them a cookie every now and again, they will sign or do anything to get a job. We live in a society full of slaves.
The Arab Spring, Occupy, Anonymous... these are but the tip of the potential iceberg, and the rich and powerful are putting some serious effort into chilling these movements right back into frozen immobility.
(It probably doesn't hurt to mention that I was molested by my stepfather from ages 16 to 18, so I've got a fair bit of firsthand personal experience on the matter.
Actually it does hurt, since it completely destroys the argument you are trying to support. In your situation, how did the law (that your stepfather violated) help you? What do you think would have happened, had you reported this situation to the police? Do you think their involvement would have improved the situation?
Why did you wait until you were seventeen to join the military? Because society is smart enough to know that we shouldn't let thirteen year olds join up.... Why did you wait till 15 to learn to drive? Because at twelve you would have killed someone.
And yet there are societies on this earth who DO allow such things. Why are our arbitrary age limits morally superior to other countries' arbitrary age limits (or lack thereof)?
You did some underage drinking and turned out okay? Good for you. One of my sister's friends drank a liter soda bottle full of vodka on the school bus when she was fifteen and had to have her stomach pumped. Another kid I didn't really know died from choking on his own vomit after drinking at a party in tenth grade.
And the laws against underage drinking protected these people, did it?
You had sex as a kid and turned out fine? Glad to hear it. I lost count of how many girls in my school dropped out after getting pregnant.
So you're arguing that looking lustfully at a picture of a young, fully clothed girl, is the exact same thing as a) bashing someone's head in, b) stealing their money/possessions, then c) speeding away?
If you signed an agreement saying that you would turn relevant IP over to your employer during your employment there, then not doing so would be unethical.
This is utter nonsense. If I sign an agreement forfeiting my life and unborn son, only because I was in a high pressure situation "following the crowd" in which I was not able to think clearly and understand exactly what I was agreeing too, while the person writing the contract has purposely taken advantage of my ignorance and indeed set the entire situation up this way, so that he can stealthily slips these provisions through right under my nose.......you're saying I'm the asshole, if I later realize what I've agreed to and refuse to honor an horrible contract?
You can't negotiate after the contract has been signed.
False. You can negotiate in ANY situation in which you have leverage. Maybe you just need to wait until the time is right, i.e. it's crunch time and every hand is needed to ship the product in a few weeks. Now you raise your "growing concerns" about "certain aspects" of the employment contract, and press until the suitable changes are made.
If management is initially unresponsive, then you start hinting subtly about the possibility of quitting and moving on to a different employer (idea: create a fake "job offer" email from a competitor, with generous terms, and leave it open on your workstation at the right time when you walk away so your manager is sure to see it.) Or maybe hint around that you are thinking of quitting outright to start your own company in a totally unrelated field. Make sure to put plenty of effort into highlighting (during this same time frame) how much your continued participation in this company benefits their bottom line, subtly implying that it's in their best interests to accommodate you.
Don't be confrontational at all. Stretch it out over a couple weeks if you can with small hints here and there, and cause management to grow *concerned* about that you *might* decide to quit, instead of making ultimatums which you will be forced to follow through on if they disagree. Butter them up then move in for the kill. You put pressure on them at the right time, in the right manner, and bluff as much as necessary, and believe me, you can get damn near anything you want within reason.
ask your boss if it'd be okay before going all agro on them.
No, wrong. Why would you ask your boss if it's "okay"? Of course it's OKAY to be working on your own projects in your own personal time without owing the company a damn thing. Jesus, what kind of society have we become if you always have to ask your "boss" if something is "OK"? What if he says no, what then? You just mumble "OK" and slink back to your cubicle?
No, if you're a businessman or want to act like one you do exactly what the GP suggested: draw up a new agreement which changes/alters the previous agreement. It doesn't have to be complicated, difficult to read, or more than one paragraph even. Bring up your concerns with the employer. When he expresses verbal concerns of empathy with your position, pull out the contract and have him sign it. If he refuses or tries to play you off with excuses, then start looking for another employer. Odds are he will back off if you are serious about standing your ground, but if he's not, you need to have the fortitude to stick with your convictions and ditch this company. Otherwise your convictions aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
Only if you're a pussy, or a moron. "Want my hard drive? OK here ya go judge, here's one with a freshly loaded copy of Ubuntu, with 'touched' timestamps and a couple years of simulated usage to support my assertion that this is the same hard drive I've been working off of daily for two years, since my prior hard drive crashed. Note the complete lack of evidence of anything which could possibly negatively impact me in this trial!"
As an employer yourself, would you be willing to sign-off on that if that meant you might eventually lose him as a result?
As an employer, I am not so naive as to believe that it is possible, or at all common, to hire an employee who never quits. Of course I'm going to lose him at some point. The real question is, how much benefit am I going to be able to get from him while he's here? If he's a good or excellent hire, what can I do to keep him around as long as possible and make him happy and productive?
Don't be penny wise and pound foolish. Treat your employees like they're a key and essential part of your business, yet respect their privacy and ensure they have the maximum available opportunity to live their own lives and pursue their own hobbies which do not directly conflict with the company mission, and your business will be smooth sailing. On the other hand if you treat your employees like expendable drones that can easily be gotten rid of and replaced at a moment's notice over the slightest disagreement, this is the mindset your employees likewise embrace, resulting in low productivity and exodus of talent.
Even if you agree to that, because you're a reasonable manager, a better question would be, do you think your HR department and legal in-house counsel (assuming your company is big enough to have those) would agree to something like that with an existing employee (when unlike you, they don't have a relationship with the employee in question, they probably don't even know him all that well, except for the fact that he's probably a valuable employee and that it may cost the company money down the road if they were to agree to such an exclusion)??
Woe unto this entire company: the manager for showing no leadership, HR for being a group of bean counters with no vision, the CEO and his executives for ignorantly or purposely creating and perpetrating this toxic atmosphere of stupidity which will lead the company into its eventual decline and downfall.
When an employer is hiring you, it never crosses his mind what you are worth or entitled to, it only crosses his mind how small of an offer he can make and still have you or someone else qualified take the job.
Only if he is a fool.....or a typical middle manager, at the risk of being redundant. Consistently paying competent people significantly less than they're worth is a poor business strategy. Also, shopping for a new employee based solely on price tag is a non starter when we're talking about a position that's distinguished enough to require a signed employment contract dealing with intellectual property issues. The end result of applying both of these ill advised strategies would be a company staffed with morons, with the few competent people all searching high and low for the first chance to move on to greener pastures. Sound like any organization you're familiar with?
For the rest of the world, people are usually just happy to have snagged a job.. the last thing they are gonna do is start making waves before they even get their first pay cheque.
If you walk into a business deal (or employment interview) with that kind of attitude, you DESERVE to get bent over the table and fucked, raw dogged in the asshole over and over, until one day you hopefully wake the fuck up and learn to stop letting people trample all over you.
And, in the case of the restaurants, sure bet that the 4 latecomers were opened by former cooks, waiters, hosts from the first, who stole the clientele list or the recipe book.
And the first restaurant--if they are indeed competent to remain in business--doesn't give a flying damn about someone stealing its restaurant book or clientele list, because these represent only a fraction of that business's value. The value of restaurants comes not from its food (which is a commodity), but because of the atmosphere and service.
On first impression, overly restrictive intellectual property smacks of intellectual slavery, but then there's always the risk of an employer's ideas, know-how and internal processes being used against them by ambitious yet unimaginative and unscrupulous employees.
Yes, and there's only one thing you can do to prevent this: treat your employees with dignity and respect. Contracts are next to useless when a person is bound and determined to screw your company over.
WHY does it have to be the exact same fucking thing?
Because if the copycat had any creativity/intelligence to call his own, he wouldn't need to copy other people's ideas verbatim.
No business which is led by competent, secure, creative, and intelligent people fears a copycat. It's the people who actually have imagination and vision that you don't want leaving the company and taking all its secrets with them. Copycats are nothing more than leeches on society and being copied by them is harmless, because by definition they will always be one step behind you.
Again, the solution to this problem is simple: pay and treat your employees well, and know what the fuck you are doing (i.e. fully understand your industry). Then you will be successful in discouraging competent employees from jumping ship to go do their own thing, without having to try threats and intimidation. That tactic only works on the type of people you don't want filling your organization.
Then, take the contract to your lawyer, tell him what you want to have covered, and he will be able to re-word that section of the contract as an amendment for you to have your employer sign.
You don't have to do any of that. All you have to do is read through the contract, cross out or reword the relevant portions, then sign it and return it. Most time they won't even notice or care. If they do though, and you are the right man for the job, no sane company is going to refuse to hire you because you disagree with their boilerplate contract. If you are assertive, they will accommodate you. You are not asking for anything unreasonable.
Slashdot Mirror
It might not be yours, but it's mine, and I don't take orders from anyone.
Kasparov, Yabloko and the like hold 1-5% support as far as anyone can tell, and are a distant fourth in line as far as potential alternatives to Putin.
Yep! Just like Ron Paul, who popularity seems to be massive and growing, yet according to the official vote counts he's an nobody, in last place.
What is really horrible is that this state of affairs isn't an accident. It was designed that way, to be a Parliment of Tyrants. When the UN was proposed and designed most nation states were unfree hellholes
And what's changed?
So lets turn over control of the Internet to the same bunch of misfits who thought seating Iran to an organization to pontificate on human rights was a good idea. And lets not forget Libya having to get booted out of the Human Rights Council when Kadaffy's body count got so high even the other tyrants were getting embarrased.
Let's not forget the good ole U.S., who has more slaves ('inmates', aka prisoners) than any other country in the world.
So oh heck yea, lets turn the Internet over to these thugs, what could possibly go wrong when the Axis of Evil starts writing the RFCs for the Evil Bit and it ain't April Fools.
I assure you, the U.S. government and their 'first world' buddies are MORE than capable of making the Internet a shithole all on their own, with or without the Axis of Evil's help.
"generally not shouting "Fire" for no reason"
Tell me citizen, what is the practical difference in the end result if you shout "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater, whether or not there is actually a fire? Do you think the theater evacuation will be calmer and safer if there IS an actual fire, with billowing smoke and flames to boot, vs you just making one up?
So when can we expect the reality show?
Sure about that? A local pho restaraunt was sold to new owners. After the sale, the food quality dropped. I noticed it, all my friends noticed it.
Food quality has nothing to do with the recipe, which did not likely change. The thing about food is, the end product varies from chef to chef, simply due to the differences in how its prepared; this is especially true in smaller establishments who don't have a system established for ensuring consistency and quality.
While technically the old owners sold their recipes, I suspect that they weren't the real recipes. If that's not true, the new owner's cut back on ingredients or something.
That's a much more likely possibility.
Why in the world would a restaurant owner be motivated to intentionally destroy something he created (the restaurant and its image) by giving the new owner false recipes? That doesn't make any sense at all.
And you're quite wrong about recipes not being coveted assets.
Just because somebody covets something doesn't mean it has actual value to anyone else, or that release of said info would cause any actual harm to said person/company. Anyone with enough money and time can figure out the exact recipe for a commercial food item, or damn close, given the right equipment/knowledge and representative examples to reverse engineer. Do you think the McDonalds executive team stays up at night sweating with worry that someone will figure out their Big Mac recipe and start selling knock off Big Macs, undercutting their sales? Of course not.
This is because the real value is their name (brand), and all the thought and knowledge that went into creating that brand, and the procedures/supply chain necessary to make and serve food quickly on such a scale, not the specific items they sell. In fact I'm pretty sure you can find a book out there somewhere that will tell you how to make a Big Mac. But if someone wanted to make a business out of selling Big Mac clones, they couldn't, because nobody would buy it, plus McDonalds would sue them into oblivion.
"Would you work for a company that forced its employees to join a social network?"
Of course not.
It's really sad how (based on responses to this story) there are apparently lots of slashdot posters out there who are so desperate for a master to pull their chains, and toss them a cookie every now and again, they will sign or do anything to get a job. We live in a society full of slaves.
The Arab Spring, Occupy, Anonymous... these are but the tip of the potential iceberg, and the rich and powerful are putting some serious effort into chilling these movements right back into frozen immobility.
Their efforts are in vain
(It probably doesn't hurt to mention that I was molested by my stepfather from ages 16 to 18, so I've got a fair bit of firsthand personal experience on the matter.
Actually it does hurt, since it completely destroys the argument you are trying to support. In your situation, how did the law (that your stepfather violated) help you? What do you think would have happened, had you reported this situation to the police? Do you think their involvement would have improved the situation?
Why did you wait until you were seventeen to join the military? Because society is smart enough to know that we shouldn't let thirteen year olds join up. ... Why did you wait till 15 to learn to drive? Because at twelve you would have killed someone.
And yet there are societies on this earth who DO allow such things. Why are our arbitrary age limits morally superior to other countries' arbitrary age limits (or lack thereof)?
You did some underage drinking and turned out okay? Good for you. One of my sister's friends drank a liter soda bottle full of vodka on the school bus when she was fifteen and had to have her stomach pumped. Another kid I didn't really know died from choking on his own vomit after drinking at a party in tenth grade.
And the laws against underage drinking protected these people, did it?
You had sex as a kid and turned out fine? Glad to hear it. I lost count of how many girls in my school dropped out after getting pregnant.
The solution is putting the father in prison?
So you're arguing that looking lustfully at a picture of a young, fully clothed girl, is the exact same thing as a) bashing someone's head in, b) stealing their money/possessions, then c) speeding away?
And if someone is sexually attracted to a fourteen year old, I (and most every other moron with a shallow perspective) will call them a pedophile
FTFY
But if things were just the opposite, I'm sure you'd be QUITE happy to see that the slashdot moderation system is working just fine. Right?
It has happened a lot. That's why these contracts exist.
Yes, and people smoking marijuana happens a lot. That's why drug laws exist.
Just because something exists, doesn't mean it's righteous, or the best way of doing things.
If you signed an agreement saying that you would turn relevant IP over to your employer during your employment there, then not doing so would be unethical.
This is utter nonsense. If I sign an agreement forfeiting my life and unborn son, only because I was in a high pressure situation "following the crowd" in which I was not able to think clearly and understand exactly what I was agreeing too, while the person writing the contract has purposely taken advantage of my ignorance and indeed set the entire situation up this way, so that he can stealthily slips these provisions through right under my nose.......you're saying I'm the asshole, if I later realize what I've agreed to and refuse to honor an horrible contract?
Wow, you have a REALLY warped view of "ethics."
You can't negotiate after the contract has been signed.
False. You can negotiate in ANY situation in which you have leverage. Maybe you just need to wait until the time is right, i.e. it's crunch time and every hand is needed to ship the product in a few weeks. Now you raise your "growing concerns" about "certain aspects" of the employment contract, and press until the suitable changes are made.
If management is initially unresponsive, then you start hinting subtly about the possibility of quitting and moving on to a different employer (idea: create a fake "job offer" email from a competitor, with generous terms, and leave it open on your workstation at the right time when you walk away so your manager is sure to see it.) Or maybe hint around that you are thinking of quitting outright to start your own company in a totally unrelated field. Make sure to put plenty of effort into highlighting (during this same time frame) how much your continued participation in this company benefits their bottom line, subtly implying that it's in their best interests to accommodate you.
Don't be confrontational at all. Stretch it out over a couple weeks if you can with small hints here and there, and cause management to grow *concerned* about that you *might* decide to quit, instead of making ultimatums which you will be forced to follow through on if they disagree. Butter them up then move in for the kill. You put pressure on them at the right time, in the right manner, and bluff as much as necessary, and believe me, you can get damn near anything you want within reason.
ask your boss if it'd be okay before going all agro on them.
No, wrong. Why would you ask your boss if it's "okay"? Of course it's OKAY to be working on your own projects in your own personal time without owing the company a damn thing. Jesus, what kind of society have we become if you always have to ask your "boss" if something is "OK"? What if he says no, what then? You just mumble "OK" and slink back to your cubicle?
No, if you're a businessman or want to act like one you do exactly what the GP suggested: draw up a new agreement which changes/alters the previous agreement. It doesn't have to be complicated, difficult to read, or more than one paragraph even. Bring up your concerns with the employer. When he expresses verbal concerns of empathy with your position, pull out the contract and have him sign it. If he refuses or tries to play you off with excuses, then start looking for another employer. Odds are he will back off if you are serious about standing your ground, but if he's not, you need to have the fortitude to stick with your convictions and ditch this company. Otherwise your convictions aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
Yes, you do have to provide it.
Only if you're a pussy, or a moron. "Want my hard drive? OK here ya go judge, here's one with a freshly loaded copy of Ubuntu, with 'touched' timestamps and a couple years of simulated usage to support my assertion that this is the same hard drive I've been working off of daily for two years, since my prior hard drive crashed. Note the complete lack of evidence of anything which could possibly negatively impact me in this trial!"
As an employer yourself, would you be willing to sign-off on that if that meant you might eventually lose him as a result?
As an employer, I am not so naive as to believe that it is possible, or at all common, to hire an employee who never quits. Of course I'm going to lose him at some point. The real question is, how much benefit am I going to be able to get from him while he's here? If he's a good or excellent hire, what can I do to keep him around as long as possible and make him happy and productive?
Don't be penny wise and pound foolish. Treat your employees like they're a key and essential part of your business, yet respect their privacy and ensure they have the maximum available opportunity to live their own lives and pursue their own hobbies which do not directly conflict with the company mission, and your business will be smooth sailing. On the other hand if you treat your employees like expendable drones that can easily be gotten rid of and replaced at a moment's notice over the slightest disagreement, this is the mindset your employees likewise embrace, resulting in low productivity and exodus of talent.
Even if you agree to that, because you're a reasonable manager, a better question would be, do you think your HR department and legal in-house counsel (assuming your company is big enough to have those) would agree to something like that with an existing employee (when unlike you, they don't have a relationship with the employee in question, they probably don't even know him all that well, except for the fact that he's probably a valuable employee and that it may cost the company money down the road if they were to agree to such an exclusion)??
Woe unto this entire company: the manager for showing no leadership, HR for being a group of bean counters with no vision, the CEO and his executives for ignorantly or purposely creating and perpetrating this toxic atmosphere of stupidity which will lead the company into its eventual decline and downfall.
When an employer is hiring you, it never crosses his mind what you are worth or entitled to, it only crosses his mind how small of an offer he can make and still have you or someone else qualified take the job.
Only if he is a fool.....or a typical middle manager, at the risk of being redundant. Consistently paying competent people significantly less than they're worth is a poor business strategy. Also, shopping for a new employee based solely on price tag is a non starter when we're talking about a position that's distinguished enough to require a signed employment contract dealing with intellectual property issues. The end result of applying both of these ill advised strategies would be a company staffed with morons, with the few competent people all searching high and low for the first chance to move on to greener pastures. Sound like any organization you're familiar with?
And this gives the company any moral right to you work, done completely outside of company time and resources.....how, exactly?
For the rest of the world, people are usually just happy to have snagged a job.. the last thing they are gonna do is start making waves before they even get their first pay cheque.
If you walk into a business deal (or employment interview) with that kind of attitude, you DESERVE to get bent over the table and fucked, raw dogged in the asshole over and over, until one day you hopefully wake the fuck up and learn to stop letting people trample all over you.
And, in the case of the restaurants, sure bet that the 4 latecomers were opened by former cooks, waiters, hosts from the first, who stole the clientele list or the recipe book.
And the first restaurant--if they are indeed competent to remain in business--doesn't give a flying damn about someone stealing its restaurant book or clientele list, because these represent only a fraction of that business's value. The value of restaurants comes not from its food (which is a commodity), but because of the atmosphere and service.
On first impression, overly restrictive intellectual property smacks of intellectual slavery, but then there's always the risk of an employer's ideas, know-how and internal processes being used against them by ambitious yet unimaginative and unscrupulous employees.
Yes, and there's only one thing you can do to prevent this: treat your employees with dignity and respect. Contracts are next to useless when a person is bound and determined to screw your company over.
WHY does it have to be the exact same fucking thing?
Because if the copycat had any creativity/intelligence to call his own, he wouldn't need to copy other people's ideas verbatim.
No business which is led by competent, secure, creative, and intelligent people fears a copycat. It's the people who actually have imagination and vision that you don't want leaving the company and taking all its secrets with them. Copycats are nothing more than leeches on society and being copied by them is harmless, because by definition they will always be one step behind you.
Again, the solution to this problem is simple: pay and treat your employees well, and know what the fuck you are doing (i.e. fully understand your industry). Then you will be successful in discouraging competent employees from jumping ship to go do their own thing, without having to try threats and intimidation. That tactic only works on the type of people you don't want filling your organization.
Then, take the contract to your lawyer, tell him what you want to have covered, and he will be able to re-word that section of the contract as an amendment for you to have your employer sign.
You don't have to do any of that. All you have to do is read through the contract, cross out or reword the relevant portions, then sign it and return it. Most time they won't even notice or care. If they do though, and you are the right man for the job, no sane company is going to refuse to hire you because you disagree with their boilerplate contract. If you are assertive, they will accommodate you. You are not asking for anything unreasonable.