In the U.K., the person being sued for libel is guilty until proven innocent. If they can't prove that everything they said is true, they lose.
In the U.S., you are innocent until proven guilty. The corporation has to prove:
That what you wrote was not true.
That you knew it wasn't true.
That you wrote it intending to cause them damage.
and that they actually suffered monetary damage.
So, as far as U.S. (and many other countries) laws go, you are wrong -- not having proof does not make it libel.
The real issue, though, is that an American citizen is being sued for libel in the U.K. for an article that is on an American website. Should corporations be allowed to shop around for the most pro-corporate court?
If my neighbor steals my newspaper, should I be allowed to press charges in Saudi Arabia and have their hand chopped off?
The report made it clear. It is not about democracy or who is actually responsible for innovation. It is all about who has the most economic muscle.
The problem is that while the "industry leaders" are organized to fight for their own interests, those of us that work for these "leaders" are not organized. Rather than spouting off as individuals, if we joined together and used our collective economic power, we can turn the tables. We are the ones that create and run the computers and software that this is all about, and if we join together, we can shut it all down.
Yeah, I know a lot of managers will flame me for talking union, but it is our only hope.
You can rent a video for $1, have it for 24 hours, and 5+ people can watch it at a time. That's $1 for 120+ people hours with something that would cost about $15.
Now for this book rental, you're paying $1 for 10 people hours for something that would cost about $5 to buy. What a rip-off. Especially since you can check it out of the library for free and have it for over 300 hours. Oh I forgot, libraries are going to be outlawed since they breed contempt for corporate property rights. Damn.
So many corporate assholes, so few walls to put them up against.
The ACM news mailing had an interesting store a couple days ago. It seems some big-wig at HP was giving a talk at some political function. He was explaining that there is a crisis in the U.S. caused by the shortage of talent in the U.S. in general and in Silicon Valley in particular. Odd that HP just recently laid off thousands and cut the salaries of those that are left.
The other interstesting thing I've heard is large companies berating universities for teaching things that the companies don't currently need. There was an article somewhere (I think SlashDot) where some big company was complaining that there is too much math taught in computer science programs and that keeps people out. Essentially, they are trying to dumb down the universities to level of tech vocational schools that teach the specific skills tech companies need right now. The desired effect is that they will have an endless supply of young people fresh out of school, that are up-to-speed on the latest skill fad. Of course after five years, they'll be burned out and leave the industry entirely, but that's ok, because there are more gullible kids coming out of school to replace them.
I've seen many stories over the past few years that give statistics showing how only a small percentage of people with computer science degrees are still doing software development after 15 years. They get burned out, they want to be able to have a family and a real life, so they move on. And rather than these being the least talented, these are the smartest, most talented -- that's why they both are smart enough to have sane priorities in their life, as well as the ability to move to another field.
Now, if these "industry leaders" were interested in building up a pool of dedicated workers in the industry rather than chewing us up and spitting us out, maybe there wouldn't be a "shortage".
I say this as a software engineer with several years of experience, and I'm currently working 80 hour weeks to get our product shipped out. Yes, I'm capable of doing this, but that's nothing to be proud of.
Re:The "Roundup Ready" Seeds
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 2
Aren't seeds cheap to the point of absurdity?
Kinda makes you wonder why a bunch of big for-profit companies are so interested in producing these seeds? Is it because they are interested in charity and just want to make the world a better place at the expense of profit? Not likely.
I'd suggest reading the stuff these companies tell investors rather than their press releases meant for the general public. They will always be telling the public that they are doing it because it is such kind and beneficial thing and that it is completely safe and wonderful. They could be selling baby formula filled with lead and DDT and they'd be saying the same thing. For the investors, they have to explain how they plan on making a profit.
And the basic idea for how they're going to make a profit is that they spend a bunch of money up front on research, but then they own the patent on the new seed. They then aggressively go after market share, eliminating the cheap competition until they have market dominance and can dictate the terms to their wide customer base. Sound familiar? Think "patented seeds" == "closed source". Think "unpatented seeds" == "open source". Now imagine what happens after a bunch of corporate mergers and aggressive expansion of market share. Now what might the blue screen of death be analgous with?
People have been breeding seeds for various characteristics for centuries. I don't see this as being such a big deal
It's not. Of course, for all these centuries, nobody could patent the resulting genetic structure. Nobody could force people to pay royalties for growing a certain kind of crop. And there were no large multi-national corporations with the power to use this goverment-granted power to control the world's food supply.
That's the sort of thing this promises - technology that can bring more happiness to the world.
Yeah, that's what it promises, and in the hands of the people that would be affected by it, that is exactly what it could do. It's the same with almost any technology.
Re:I will never work for a union since I'm compete
on
Dial U for Union
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And without slaves we wouldn't have had cotton for our clothing. It's the year 2001 and the original catalyst argument doesn't wash anymore. Tell me what a Union has done for the planet lately besides causing the US car industry to crumble.
Unions made the 8-hour day, 40-hour week standard. Before unions fought for it and won it, everyone, whether in a union or not, worker or manager, worked much more than 40-hours. During this time (the late 1800's through the 1930's), unions grew in membership and strength and the workday got shorter. Since the 30's and especially since the 60's, unions have declined, and the workday has steadily gotten longer, to the point where a 45 or 50 hour workweek is pretty standard.
The fact is that employers are happy to make us work as long as they can get away with. The gains union workers won decades ago will be whittled away to nothing if we don't keep up the pressure.
Maybe you think 60-hour work weeks are a good idea. If that's the case, I'd say either you're a manager spreading FUD, or you need to get a life.
The real reason that some jobs have gone to Mexico is because there are some jobs for which Mexicans are better, more productive workers.
How about cheaper? The reason jobs have gone to mexico specifically is that labor is very cheap, and you don't have to ship the finished products as far as if you used countries where the work is really cheap. Now, why are wages so low in Mexico? And who might have an interest in keeping them low?
Mexico is a third-world dictatorship? Sorry to break past your Frito-Bandido stereotypes, but it is a democracy.
For seventy years or so, it was a one-party state. You could say that it is because everybody was just so happy with the incumbents, but massive election fraud and corruption is much more likely. As far as unions go, my understanding is that Mexican labor law greatly favors the union that is directly tied to the old ruling party. As such, workers trying to stand up for themselves have to stand up against union bosses that are working for the employers more than for the workers.
Perhaps with their recent break from one-party rule, the Mexican workers will be able to take back control of their unions.
But, yes, Mexico is not a brutal dictatorship like China or Indonesia. As a result, products that are small and cheaper to ship to the U.S. tend to get produced in the farther off dictatorships. After all, workers with a gun to their head are, as you say, "better, more productive workers" -- just ask Nike.
Re:I will never work for a union...
on
Dial U for Union
·
· Score: 1
My guess is that most of the anti-union FUD being thrown around here is actually from managers. Listening to them is like listening to Steve Balmer talk about the downsides of Linux.
Unions are diverse I don't think that there is anyone on/. who believes that these so-called independent Unions are not all tied together by one common organization, know which one I mean Tony?
Uh, in the U.S., most unions are in the AFL-CIO, but some are not. The IWW for one. There is also the possibility of the workers in one company forming their own independent union with absolutely no outside influence.
Unions can better bad policy Do you like workers who have no motivation to do quality work? Do you like workers who have little or know fear of being fired? Do you like having to kiss the ass of every low-life Union supervisor just to get his people to do their job. Come on. Everyone has had experience with the wonderful work ethics of Union workers.
Without a union, employees in most states are "at will". That means that the boss can fire them for almost any reason or even no reason. With a union, you can have a fair procedure that managers must follow when firing someone. Which do you prefer? A workplace where you can only be fired if you do bad work or if you are causing problems for your coworkers? Or a workplace where everyone is either covering their own ass or kissing ass and you can be fired based on your manager's whims?
Unions give you a voice Yes, let's just remove any reward for being better at your job than the schlub next to you. We're all equal in the IT industry and should all be treated the same. While we're at it lets remove any competition completely and give everyone the same wages irregardless of their abilities.
Yeah, 90% of tech workers think they are in the top 1% and that all their co-workers are stupid. It's really quite embarrassing.
It is very clear that tech workers do not want everyone getting the same wage -- so why do you think that tech workers in a union would vote for such a contract?
If you have a manager that never makes unilateral decisions that you disagree with or are against your interests, then maybe a union isn't for you. It seems to me, though, that such a manager is rare, or you're so used to it and you have such a low feeling of self-worth that you don't ever think about what you would prefer.
Unions start with you Sure, I like your mentioning those "stupid management decisions" because we all know that management are just a bunch of idiots who don't know what their doing. You really need to wake up Tony. Management got to be management because they know how to get things done, something that the Unions seem to be very much against.
Ah. So either:
You are a manager.
or
You want to be a manager, but aren't good enough.
Either way, I don't see why anyone should take your FUD seriously.
Re:Overall union membership has been on the declin
on
Dial U for Union
·
· Score: 1
If you think unions are so good, why can't they keep manufacturing and other industrial jobs from going to Mexico and overseas?
Uh, because in many of the countries where the jobs have gone, organizing for better conditions is not legally protected, and union leaders are often jailed, tortured, and killed. Oddly enough, the companies that move operations to third-world dictatorships also give money to politicians that vote for more guns for the same dictators. Coincidence? I think not.
If anything, this is an argument for unions, though for international unions rather than nationalist unions.
It looks like Dr. Shorter is basing his information from a dissertation by Dr Yolande Lucire. If you go to Dr. Lucire's webpage it's clear that Dr. Lucire is just a hired gun for insurance companies and large employers.
Her doctoral dissertation concerns the current pandemic of Repetitive Strain Injury, RSI, also known as Cumulative Trauma Disorder CTD. This is an epidemic of somatization (hysteria affecting the soma, the body). Somatization is also known as 'functional overlay' or 'functional disorder' by the legal profession.
Her thesis, Ideology and Aetiology: RSI: an epidemic of craft palsy, examines the origins , the medical philosophies that allowed it to thrive and the issues surrounding those who were afflicted.
She is frequently called to consult in RSI cases both in Australia and in the United Kingdom.
Dr Lucire is interested in developing a consultancy practice to the Legal Profession in the United States and Canada as well as her Australian and British work. She would be happy to travel overseas and to review the large numbers of claimants involved in class actions, to conduct appropriate interviews and to provide litigation standard reports.
She's no different than the "doctors" hired by tobacco companies to testify that there is no evidence to suggest a connection between smoking and lung cancer.
The real question, of course, is where these "experts" are getting their money. There are an aweful lot of insurance companies and employers that have many millions of dollars to buy research that says they don't have to spend money to prevent and treat workplace injuries.
Just look at the claims -- when Australia stopped paying to treat carpel tunnel syndrome, the number of cases dropped. Imagine that... here we have an injury that makes it very difficult to perform your job. If the health care system covers the treatment, then your employer won't necessarily fire you for your lower productivity, and you have no reason to not get treated. If the health care system doesn't cover the treatment, then your employer notices the lower productivity and fires you, since there is no "real" reason. Then, you are out of work, which means that you are no longer doing the activity that keeps the injury from healing, *and* you don't have the money to pay medical bills that are no longer covered. If you are able to switch to another job that doesn't bring back the problem, then there is no need to go to the doctor, and if you are incapable of getting work, you don't have the money to go to the doctor. Next thing you know, doctors are treating much fewer patients with carpel tunnel syndrome, even though the problem hasn't gone away.
It's just like Reagan's magical drop in the unemployment rate -- they redefined what it means to be unemployed, and next thing you know the unemployment rate dropped literally overnight.
I'm not impressed.
The fact is that repetitive strain injuries are looking to cost insurance companies and employers a lot of money. That means they have a strong incentive to avoid having to pay out. If a few million in bribes can get you out of hundreds of millions of expenses, that's good business.
uh... GPL'ed code is completely accessible to everyone. You just can't necessarily do everything you want with it. How is spending tax dollars on Microsoft Software or for contract work any more accessible? The truth is that if the federal government took all the money it currently spends for Microsoft's proprietary, inaccessible software and spent it on developing Linux, the resulting software would be much more accessible to taxpayers.
And, btw, when the government builds a road, while everyone may be allowed to drive on it, there are still restrictions of use. I don't see what the big deal is.
As for GPL software being cancer... Did you ever notice that with proprietary software made by for-profit companies, the source code is only made available at a price? Guess what? If you want to use that code in software that you produce, you must pay royalties. Of course, if you want to give away free software, you're out of luck, because you won't get money from sales to cover the royalties. That means you are forced by the closed-source license to release your software as closed-source.
How come Microsoft calls this closed-source self-propagating license "innovation" while calling the GPL "cancer"? Because their words originate not from logic or a consistent set of ethics and values but rather from the big money bags. Nothing necessarily wrong with not-so-enlightened self-interest, but you really shouldn't take a used-car salesman's word on anything.
What this about a "conspiracy"? Employers are organized and that puts them in a better bargaining position when dealing with individual, unorganized programmers. That's all. No, they don't all have secret handshakes and decoder rings.
If this were not true, then whenever you went to apply for a job, you would bring the contract and they would feel compelled to sign it with little or no modification.
As for programmers not being worth special treatment, and the law of supply and demand... Capitalism says you are worth what you can get. If organizing together helps you to get more, then that means organizing together makes you worth more.
If you have some kind of weird self-loathing thing going on where you are afraid of getting more than you "deserve", then you got some problems and I think you need to work them out with your therapist.
It sure is crazy, though, how the anti-union folks are both worried about unions giving us lower salaries and unions giving us more than we deserve.
Slashdot Mirror
In the U.S., you are innocent until proven guilty. The corporation has to prove:
- That what you wrote was not true.
- That you knew it wasn't true.
- That you wrote it intending to cause them damage.
- and that they actually suffered monetary damage.
So, as far as U.S. (and many other countries) laws go, you are wrong -- not having proof does not make it libel.The real issue, though, is that an American citizen is being sued for libel in the U.K. for an article that is on an American website. Should corporations be allowed to shop around for the most pro-corporate court?
If my neighbor steals my newspaper, should I be allowed to press charges in Saudi Arabia and have their hand chopped off?
The problem is that while the "industry leaders" are organized to fight for their own interests, those of us that work for these "leaders" are not organized. Rather than spouting off as individuals, if we joined together and used our collective economic power, we can turn the tables. We are the ones that create and run the computers and software that this is all about, and if we join together, we can shut it all down.
Yeah, I know a lot of managers will flame me for talking union, but it is our only hope.
Warning: the following is an illegal device!
Now for this book rental, you're paying $1 for 10 people hours for something that would cost about $5 to buy. What a rip-off. Especially since you can check it out of the library for free and have it for over 300 hours. Oh I forgot, libraries are going to be outlawed since they breed contempt for corporate property rights. Damn.
So many corporate assholes, so few walls to put them up against.
The other interstesting thing I've heard is large companies berating universities for teaching things that the companies don't currently need. There was an article somewhere (I think SlashDot) where some big company was complaining that there is too much math taught in computer science programs and that keeps people out. Essentially, they are trying to dumb down the universities to level of tech vocational schools that teach the specific skills tech companies need right now. The desired effect is that they will have an endless supply of young people fresh out of school, that are up-to-speed on the latest skill fad. Of course after five years, they'll be burned out and leave the industry entirely, but that's ok, because there are more gullible kids coming out of school to replace them.
I've seen many stories over the past few years that give statistics showing how only a small percentage of people with computer science degrees are still doing software development after 15 years. They get burned out, they want to be able to have a family and a real life, so they move on. And rather than these being the least talented, these are the smartest, most talented -- that's why they both are smart enough to have sane priorities in their life, as well as the ability to move to another field.
Now, if these "industry leaders" were interested in building up a pool of dedicated workers in the industry rather than chewing us up and spitting us out, maybe there wouldn't be a "shortage".
I say this as a software engineer with several years of experience, and I'm currently working 80 hour weeks to get our product shipped out. Yes, I'm capable of doing this, but that's nothing to be proud of.
Kinda makes you wonder why a bunch of big for-profit companies are so interested in producing these seeds? Is it because they are interested in charity and just want to make the world a better place at the expense of profit? Not likely.
I'd suggest reading the stuff these companies tell investors rather than their press releases meant for the general public. They will always be telling the public that they are doing it because it is such kind and beneficial thing and that it is completely safe and wonderful. They could be selling baby formula filled with lead and DDT and they'd be saying the same thing. For the investors, they have to explain how they plan on making a profit.
And the basic idea for how they're going to make a profit is that they spend a bunch of money up front on research, but then they own the patent on the new seed. They then aggressively go after market share, eliminating the cheap competition until they have market dominance and can dictate the terms to their wide customer base. Sound familiar? Think "patented seeds" == "closed source". Think "unpatented seeds" == "open source". Now imagine what happens after a bunch of corporate mergers and aggressive expansion of market share. Now what might the blue screen of death be analgous with?
People have been breeding seeds for various characteristics for centuries. I don't see this as being such a big deal
It's not. Of course, for all these centuries, nobody could patent the resulting genetic structure. Nobody could force people to pay royalties for growing a certain kind of crop. And there were no large multi-national corporations with the power to use this goverment-granted power to control the world's food supply.
That's the sort of thing this promises - technology that can bring more happiness to the world.
Yeah, that's what it promises, and in the hands of the people that would be affected by it, that is exactly what it could do. It's the same with almost any technology.
The fact is that employers are happy to make us work as long as they can get away with. The gains union workers won decades ago will be whittled away to nothing if we don't keep up the pressure.
Maybe you think 60-hour work weeks are a good idea. If that's the case, I'd say either you're a manager spreading FUD, or you need to get a life.
Perhaps with their recent break from one-party rule, the Mexican workers will be able to take back control of their unions.
But, yes, Mexico is not a brutal dictatorship like China or Indonesia. As a result, products that are small and cheaper to ship to the U.S. tend to get produced in the farther off dictatorships. After all, workers with a gun to their head are, as you say, "better, more productive workers" -- just ask Nike.
Uh, in the U.S., most unions are in the AFL-CIO, but some are not. The IWW for one. There is also the possibility of the workers in one company forming their own independent union with absolutely no outside influence.
Without a union, employees in most states are "at will". That means that the boss can fire them for almost any reason or even no reason. With a union, you can have a fair procedure that managers must follow when firing someone. Which do you prefer? A workplace where you can only be fired if you do bad work or if you are causing problems for your coworkers? Or a workplace where everyone is either covering their own ass or kissing ass and you can be fired based on your manager's whims?
Yeah, 90% of tech workers think they are in the top 1% and that all their co-workers are stupid. It's really quite embarrassing.
It is very clear that tech workers do not want everyone getting the same wage -- so why do you think that tech workers in a union would vote for such a contract?
If you have a manager that never makes unilateral decisions that you disagree with or are against your interests, then maybe a union isn't for you. It seems to me, though, that such a manager is rare, or you're so used to it and you have such a low feeling of self-worth that you don't ever think about what you would prefer.
Ah. So either:
- You are a manager.
- You want to be a manager, but aren't good enough.
Either way, I don't see why anyone should take your FUD seriously.or
Uh, because in many of the countries where the jobs have gone, organizing for better conditions is not legally protected, and union leaders are often jailed, tortured, and killed. Oddly enough, the companies that move operations to third-world dictatorships also give money to politicians that vote for more guns for the same dictators. Coincidence? I think not.
If anything, this is an argument for unions, though for international unions rather than nationalist unions.
Just look at the claims -- when Australia stopped paying to treat carpel tunnel syndrome, the number of cases dropped. Imagine that... here we have an injury that makes it very difficult to perform your job. If the health care system covers the treatment, then your employer won't necessarily fire you for your lower productivity, and you have no reason to not get treated. If the health care system doesn't cover the treatment, then your employer notices the lower productivity and fires you, since there is no "real" reason. Then, you are out of work, which means that you are no longer doing the activity that keeps the injury from healing, *and* you don't have the money to pay medical bills that are no longer covered. If you are able to switch to another job that doesn't bring back the problem, then there is no need to go to the doctor, and if you are incapable of getting work, you don't have the money to go to the doctor. Next thing you know, doctors are treating much fewer patients with carpel tunnel syndrome, even though the problem hasn't gone away.
It's just like Reagan's magical drop in the unemployment rate -- they redefined what it means to be unemployed, and next thing you know the unemployment rate dropped literally overnight.
I'm not impressed.
The fact is that repetitive strain injuries are looking to cost insurance companies and employers a lot of money. That means they have a strong incentive to avoid having to pay out. If a few million in bribes can get you out of hundreds of millions of expenses, that's good business.
And, btw, when the government builds a road, while everyone may be allowed to drive on it, there are still restrictions of use. I don't see what the big deal is.
As for GPL software being cancer... Did you ever notice that with proprietary software made by for-profit companies, the source code is only made available at a price? Guess what? If you want to use that code in software that you produce, you must pay royalties. Of course, if you want to give away free software, you're out of luck, because you won't get money from sales to cover the royalties. That means you are forced by the closed-source license to release your software as closed-source.
How come Microsoft calls this closed-source self-propagating license "innovation" while calling the GPL "cancer"? Because their words originate not from logic or a consistent set of ethics and values but rather from the big money bags. Nothing necessarily wrong with not-so-enlightened self-interest, but you really shouldn't take a used-car salesman's word on anything.
If this were not true, then whenever you went to apply for a job, you would bring the contract and they would feel compelled to sign it with little or no modification.
As for programmers not being worth special treatment, and the law of supply and demand... Capitalism says you are worth what you can get. If organizing together helps you to get more, then that means organizing together makes you worth more.
If you have some kind of weird self-loathing thing going on where you are afraid of getting more than you "deserve", then you got some problems and I think you need to work them out with your therapist.
It sure is crazy, though, how the anti-union folks are both worried about unions giving us lower salaries and unions giving us more than we deserve.