Fine, let them win. Okay, fair use is not a consumer right!
And copyright protection is not a producer right either then.
Actually, the argument made in the article is just that - they are legal constructs that a judge and court decides if they are valid defenses against copyright infringement or ownership.
You can assert copyright over anything - whether or not it is a valid assertion is for the legal system to decide; just as it decides if your use of copyrighted material is fair use.
It's not a right in the sense that they exist separate from the legal system created by government - it's not life, liberty, and the pursuit of fair use.
Copyrights and fair use are designed to balance the benefits to the public of using material with the need to protect the material's creator's ownership of the material to reap the benefits of creating it.
Now we can argue the rationality of the current system or the concepts of "rights" but I believe the article was arguing that since copyright is a legal construct things granted under it are not fundamental rights but a way of regulating commerce; and hence something a court ultimately decides who can do what with the material.
ot sure about the other two, but NOBODY can "buy a firearm on-line".
By law, and very heavily enforced throughout the industry, firearms must be physically transferred through Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL dealers), who require detailed forms be filled out and background checks run. While payment to original seller may occur on-line and arrangements for shipping occur, taking physical possession requires face-to-face meeting with a federally licensed dealer who will require federally recognized ID, run a NICS criminal background check (or confirm more detailed checks have occurred), and require legally binding statements of eligibility (a felony to lie on the so-called "yellow forms"). Shipping may only be to an FFL or current owner (not buyer).
No, Jack, there is no "age verification software that is available for... firearm... purchases" - because you CANNOT legally purchase firearms on-line!
That's true fro the legal definition of firearms, which, AIR, does not include non-cartridge black power weapons including handguns and rifles.
I think you're leaning too much on the side of the business. Sure they're free to unbundle stuff and sell separately for higher prices, but is that ethical?
That's not really a question of ethics but of the economics of pricing. Offering various types of bundles allows you to sell to a broader range of customers - that's why companies do it. If pulling some items lets you offer a $900 as well as a $1000 bundle as well as ala carte offerings you do it because combined you'll sell more than separately. Why do you think McD's offers Value Meals, upsizing, a dollar menu and seperate prices that combined are more expensive than the Value meal.
You know how the sales pitch works... the salesman doesn't say "Oh you can do this yourself at home, or we can do it for $30, it's your choice." He says, "You need a recovery CD in case something happens! HP stopped including them, but we will graciously provide one for $30. $30 buys peace of mind! This could save you hundreds by not having to bring it in to the shop! Computer experts recommend getting the recovery CD!" It's all true, and legal, but is it ethical in your opinion?
While I don't like high pressure sales tactics, it's not unethical unless you promise something you don't deliver; or lie about what is or is not includes. Sell someone a backup disk by saying you don't get it when the manufacturer boxes one in or offers it for free - unethical. Saying you should have a backup disk (when one is not readily available) and that they can do it for x dollars - not unethical since what they say is true and you have the option to buy or not to buy. For some people, the hassle of creating a disk is more than $30 so paying that is worth it to them, for others it is not.
It's no more unethical than the consumer advocates who say - don't buy extended warranties because they are a ripoff. Would that be unethical because some people may benefit from such a warranty?
When the salesman says "How much will pay?" is it unethical for me to give a number much lower than what I am willing to pay? No, because it is a negotiation and I am under no obligation to show my hand up front. Neither side has an ethical obligation to give more than the other side wants to close the deal.
Why do you hold customers to a *higher* standard than businesses?
I don't - it's simply a contract that both sides are free to enter into and can do whatever research they want to before they decide to enter into it.
What's wrong with negotiating if you don't like the terms of the sale? If you, as an intelligent person, know that the cost of a burned CD is 25 cents plus 10 minutes of burn time, and they want to charge you $30, then it's perfectly reasonable to say "How about giving it to me for free since I'm already paying $900 for this computer."
You missed the OP's point - there is nothing wrong with negotiating the terms of a sale; but just because a product doesn't come with something you think it does does not mean the store is doing something wrong. They are offering a product under a specific set of conditions, you are free to accept, attempt to modify, or refuse the offer.
Being a jerk because you feel you are entitled to something that is not included is childish; and it's not immoral for a salesperson to try to sell you an additional product.
We all want our stuff at rock bottom prices - which means manufacturers leave out things that used to be included - especially if most people never use them. I wonder how many people can actually find their recovery disks and how many service calls ended with the manufacturer sending out a new one even when they provided one in the box? As long as people focus on price manufacturers will cut corner to hit a price point - cheaper mice and keyboards, manuals in pdf instead of printed, shorter warranty lengths. They've unbundled these items and made it possible to buy a computer for less if you don't want them; so you are better off as a consumer since you now have a choice in what you want to buy.
What people buying from them should do, is, upon being told about the disks and the charge for them, DEMAND they be included free, or they will not buy the computer.
If the salesman refuses, raise hell with his manager. Purchaser gets the disks for free, salesman gets reprimanded (or fired).
The salesperson would be more likely to get in trouble for giving away something they sell than having a customer complain to a manager. Depending on how bad they want to sell the computer they may give you one; at any rate they'll both be gald to see you leave.
Without metrics you leave yourself open to the opinions of others. For example if your company expands and the system slows down, some r-tard in accounting will complain it's taking longer for him to do his job. If you have a performance metric such as requests processed per hour, you can clearly demonstrate that while individual requests may take longer, the overall number of requests being processed is higher. It also lets you present data for additional resources, productivity improvements, etc.
The problem with things such as requests per hour is the numerator can vary randomly; all it shows is the workload at a given point in time - making the metric meaningless as a productivity measure for things that exhibit large swings in the numerator.
The key to developing good performance management system is to identify the desired outcomes and what drives those outcomes and then measure the driver and outcome.
It's really no surprise. The 9th circuit's one of the most liberal courts in the country and so people looking for them to assert the right to liberal activities usually try and sue through them, and class action lawsuits are about as liberal as you can get.
Regardless of the 9th CC's viewpoint; a class action lawsuit is neither liberal or conservative; rather it adds a level of certainty to the legal landscape. Rather than face potentially hundreds of expensive lawsuits all around the country; class actions allow corporations to resolve liability issues once and in a final manner; while allowing individuals to sue when it would be too expensive to try to sue individually. I would expect the business community to prefer class actions suits to the alternative of defending themselves everywhere over small amounts; even though the likelihood of such cases is much smaller since the payouts probably wouldn't cover the lawyers fees. Still the certainty of class actions is better than uncertainty of individual actions since you at least have some control over teh cost of defense and ultimate liability.
It's a thing that varies state to state. In some states (Ohio) new teachers end up subing for years waiting for a full time position to open up.
Yup; and by district as well. I've worked with districts that had 500 vacant teaching slots; of course since a teacher can't afford to live near the district on the starting salary no one takes the jobs.
I think this is a good idea, although I would suggest making the teachers and administrators attend the class too. In most schools I've seen, most of the students know more about this stuff than the teachers do, and the teachers are a whole lot more resistant to learning about it, as they lump it in with "all that computer stuff" that they've convinced themselves they're incapable of learning.
That's nice, but it comes down to a time and money issue - where do you find the time to do this course - before school starts? Teachers aren't paid for those days so either they count as their continuing ed credits or most teachers will say FU. It's not that many don't care but that they simply aren't paid enough to put in even more time.
You have to find a away to overcome their fear and confusion and concern that they are stupid as well - many older teachers never really used a computer and will need basic help; while the younger ones will be bored by the "this is a mouse; this is a disk.."
The real issue is what do you do to the kids that break the rules - Mommy and Daddy will come screaming that "YOU (the teacher) should have prevented them from accessing the site, how dare you punish them!"
Finally, with no child left behind every kid will have a "right" to access technology and be protected - which means their own personal aide to be with them in each class if the are "learning disabled" or a discipline problem that is "developmentally disabled."
When I was in high school (AP Computer Science), the teacher (who knew what she was doing) would take days off and be replaced by a substitute. The only problem was that my high school classified computer programming as a math, which isn't that far off; but the substitutes would always come in and be shocked that there were computers. She would say that she was told this was a math course, and that she didn't know the first thing about programming.
This happened about once a month.
You're lucky to get a sub that could teach math - in our district (a rather wealthy one) they are so desperate for subs that if you have a HS education and can pass a police check they'll hire you. Many subs are no mor ethan glorified baby sitters; a few that are former teachers or are thinking about returning to teaching once their kids are old enough to get ready by themselves actually do teach; they tend to get on the "Call them first and beg list" for their prefered school and wind up working at one school almost exclusively (and then get a job when they want to startworking again full time).
But should entertainment be educational? Do you remember a summer blockbuster that was educational? Well, I remember learning a bunch of dinosaur names (which then I promptly forgot) on Jurassic Park. And I didn't know anything about the Titanic other than it sank, so I guess that one could count as historical.
That's part of the problem - people assume movies that are based on real stories are factually accurate - and so base their "understanding" of history on what's depicted in the movie; not from actually studying the event.
They were never able to get my bill correct for the 6 months I was with them after the initial AT&T merger. I left, went with TMobile for a year, and I am now back as an iPhone customer. I probably should review my bill.
After I left them I kept getting bills for $0.0 for several years. I called a few times but the folks at the other end said they couldn't stop them.
Sunk costs are never a valid reason for continuing an action; despite that many people do just that.
Sunk costs should never be used as part of the argument to continue doing something that's failing.
I differ - sunk costs should *never* be considered, because by definition they are not recoverable and hence irrelevant to the cost going forward. You've spent the time and money and nothing you can do can change that.
In this case, sunk costs are a proxy argument for the cost of redeveloping all of the same applications in the new environment.
Different argument - the cost of development plus on-going support needs to be used for any *new* softwrae vs the ongoing costs and any development with the old. Sunk costs have nothing to do wqith what it will ocst to put in a new system.
Most MBA's have absolutely no clue how expensive software is to develop. Every time I have come out of a scheduling meeting, the MBA's believe I'm sandbagging on the "best case" estimate, the developers believe I didn't put enough emphasis on the "worst case" estimate.
Most people have no idea how long it takes to do any software work, I generally double the cost and time estimates and very rarely am I wrong in the too high range. It's the "any work I can't understand or that I don't have to do (sales types) can't be that hard."
My favorite is that data cleanup won't take more than two days - you can't define the rules in two days let alone fix problems with migrated data.
Whenever someone tries to use sunk costs to justify a course of action I show them the door since I know they haven't thought things through.
If their LAMP applications and services are working (which they appear to be), your hasty objection would be for all the wrong reasons.
I don't think so because there argument is we should not spend money on X because of all this irrecoverable investment in Y; which has no impact on the costs going forward. They need, IMHO, to come up with a better argument for why one alternative is better.
If they are working then explain why switching is more costly; less productive; bad strategically - make a reasoned argument. The sink coast as proxy is not very good because if the costs are relatively low then they may be quickly recouped by savings; if they are high management may already have a development cost number from the vendor which will make the proxy argument look poorly thought out.
Then, as a shareholder (you are a shareholder as well, aren't you?) you ask if that's the best way to spend the IT budget by replacing a system which seems to be doing the job with already sunk costs.
Sunk costs are never a valid reason for continuing an action; despite that many people do just that.
Sunk costs are sunk - they cannot be recovered no matter what action you take so they have no bearing on chosing an action. What counts is teh cost going forward - even if you spent 10 million dollars on software X in the past but it will cost you 5 million going forward versus software Y which will only cost 1 million going forward then Y is the better choice since it costs - assuming both are adequate for the job.
Whenever someone tries to use sunk costs to justify a course of action I show them the door since I know they haven't thought things through.
Ebay's terms of service seem to differ from this practice. A listing is supposedly an offer. However, I note from the article that real-estate bids are indeed considered offers, or, as the article says, "expressions of interest."
Real Estate is probably different given the large body of law that covers the sale of real estate; eBay sales probably don't conform to the law so it is not a binding offer on real estate.
At that price, assuming it is the same as other versions sold elsewhere, it is almost at a point where bulk purchasing and shipping make it worthwhile to sell on the gray market.
"Thus the money doesn't have to change hands before the contract goes into effect."
This is probably a mistake in the long run, because now we'll start fiddling around with when a contract is in effect. For example, if an auction can only be paid for via PayPal, and the person bids, wins, and then doesn't pay for a few days, is there a sale or not?
In US law (an probably others) a contract is formed by offer and acceptance. Since a winning bid is acceptance and the seller made the offer (via the eBay listing), the conditions for a valid contract were met. The seller is obligated to deliver the goods and the buyer to pay.
In addition - there has been consideration; legal intent and I assume the person is old enough to legally enter into a contract.
An interesting question could a 10 year old (or someone who is not capable of entering into a legally binding contract) be held by eBay's rules?
If you leave it at "once money changes hands, it's a contract", then it's simple to remember and enforce. It's better for everyone, because it encourages the buyer to get the money to the seller as quickly as possible. And the buyer knows as soon as he pays for it, it's his, even if not in his possession.
Actually, that would mean either party could back out prior to payment - the buyer by not paying and the seller by refusing payment; creating a lot of uncertainty for the seller and the buyer and making contracts essentially unenforceable. That would not be a good situation and make much of today's commerce much more difficult.
A seller can only cancel an auction. Bidders cant.
and as a bidder you are at the whims of the seller until the closing price and bid has been accepted then it's a legal and binding contract.
As a seller I can screw with you all I want cancel and relist auctions every time I see you as winning bidder. I have to pay for every relisting though, so it's not free.
True, but buyers can retract bids; unethical ones can create a second account and put in an absurdly high bid then simply never pay to cancel out their bid.
There is the second chance offer - something I refuse to accept on principal. I've gotten one immediately after an auction closed because the buyer backed out; but the bidding was in numerous $5 increments by the same unknown bidder until my high bid was beaten. The seller then offered a me a second chance buy immediately after the auction closed. That smelled too much like shill bidding (although I can't prove it)to find my final price and try to sell it at that price; another had a "second item" that they would sell for my high bid.
My rule is I'll only consider ones where the buyer offers it at my highest price before the first non-wining bidder bid; not my final highest bid. Sure I was willing to buy it at that price but do not feel any obligation to help a (possibly) unethical seller get a higher price than then they would from a legitimate auction.
I've only had a couple of those type experiences on eBay; otherwise I've been quite happy as a buyer and seller.
Unfortunately, most text markup programs don't function very well as word processors so people still need Word or it's clones to do the text creation and then must move the text to a layout tool
Hm, I'm using LaTeX a lot. I do not have any problems with the text creation. I just use the editor of my choice. (No, I won't dwell on which exactly.:))
Since I'm not familar with LaTex - is the editor part of it or do you use a different editor and then do the layout? If it is the later then you basically are confirming my point.
Since when is Word a powerful text editor? I understand Word might be easier to use for the average person to quickly write a letter and such. Then again, maybe not even that -- possibly many people simply don't know about alternatives. Often you don't need any fancy formatting at all and can stick to plain text. In any case I would not recommend Word (or any other word processor for that matter) for writing a complex document.
Never said Word as a better editor - but it is the most common one and functions fine for most work (as do many alternatives); and it has it flaws and frustrations as does nay similar program. My point is that it is not really designed to do serious page layout but many people use it for just that; which results in frustration but rarely the effort to learn a new tool designed for the job. My guess is that since many people only rarely do page layout they simply find it cheaper, in terms of time and money, to live with the limitations of their current toool; which they know and often have work arounds, then spend teh time required to become profieicient in another that they may use once or twice a year with the attendent learning (and relearning) curve.
Of course, then you get into the issue that everything Word-like programs do is Wrong, and that people ought to be marking up their documents in some semantic markup language (e.g. TeX, DocBook) instead. But I digress...
I don't agree with your first assertion - everything Word-like programs do is Wrong - rather I think it is that people try to use Word like programs for things it really isn't suited. Such programs are great tools for automating what was once done manually with a type writer - i.e. writing and editing text; essentially they are a modern version of paper tape and Baudot code.
Unfortunately, as features get added people started using the tool for things it wasn't designed to do (and where the developers didn't sit down and learn from the right tools how to properly implement features; the electronic version of using a pair of pliers as a socket set.
Which brings me to your second point - people ought to be marking up their documents in some semantic markup language - with which I agree. Unfortunately, most text markup programs don't function very well as word processors so people still need Word or it's clones to do the text creation and then must move the text to a layout tool; as a result most people simply try to do the layout in their word processor and develop a set of kludges and work arounds. For example, to accomplish the OP's text layout and do TOCs you can insert tables and use hidden text to keep the header information from which to build the TOC, but that, AFAIK, requires unhiding the headers when you update the TOC so you have to carefully, manually break the pages or risk the page numbers being in error do to the now unhidden text re-wrapping the real text.
Then again, we do our page layout in PowerPoint via notes pages - talk about a stupid solution.
Which gets to my argument - this is where OSS development misses an opportunity - instead of building a free copy (sort of) of Office - develop a whole new and better way of doing it. Unfortunately I doubt that will happen because it would require a consistent vision and someone to enforce that; which is not the way most OSS communities want to work.
It's funny. You wrote that as though it's a meaningful response.
Regardless, it seems you are stuck on the assertion that taxes are a generally inefficient way to allocate resources.
In general, it is; especially since it represents a simple transfer of money form one area to another - look at all teh earmarks in Congress - do we really need bridges to nowhere; subsidies to keep sugar farmers in business (and competitors out), etc - all paid for with tax money? Do you believe taht is efficient.
Let's assume that's true. Two questions arise: - What about the situations where it *isn't* inefficient?
There are cases where government is needed - which is why we form governments.
- Is the inefficiency in the more common cases worse than the alternative?
Interestingly enough, on the topic you replied to, public healthcare in the US is actually *more* efficient than private healthcare. And, even if it weren't, even inefficient healthcare is *infinitely* more desirable than no healthcare at all.
I've seen government run US healthcare up close and personal and it ain't pretty. I would not want to have to depend on it for care after my experiences with it. I doubt once people realize that what some are proposing is inefficnet healthcare for everyone that it will get ongoing support; mor elikely we'll wind up with a two tier system - low end government care with long waits and poor facilities for those that can't afford it and our current sytem for those that can. We already see some of that with some doctors offering higher level of service (hhouse calls, for exmaple) for those who will pay more tahn what an insurance company pays.
As a sid enote, why does the UK, a country with fine schools and smart people, have to import doctors? What happens to the ones they train locally?
Personally, I like the Swiss model - individuals buy health insurance and stay with a company long term - even if they switch employers since they are the policy holder not the comapny. Universal care is not a simple let the government do it solution - issues such as cost control, allocation of servcies, etc. are often glossed over in the debate.
Take prescription drugs, for example. The US government could create a national drug program - and set price limits on what they will pay - say no more than the lowest selling price to any foreign healthcare system. Now it becomes a question of whta is more profitable - stop selling drugs to the lowest foreign payers so we can get more for US drugs (at lower overall volumes) or make less profit. It's simple mat and economics - and guess where the burden will fall?
Slashdot Mirror
Fine, let them win. Okay, fair use is not a consumer right!
And copyright protection is not a producer right either then.
Actually, the argument made in the article is just that - they are legal constructs that a judge and court decides if they are valid defenses against copyright infringement or ownership.
You can assert copyright over anything - whether or not it is a valid assertion is for the legal system to decide; just as it decides if your use of copyrighted material is fair use.
It's not a right in the sense that they exist separate from the legal system created by government - it's not life, liberty, and the pursuit of fair use.
Copyrights and fair use are designed to balance the benefits to the public of using material with the need to protect the material's creator's ownership of the material to reap the benefits of creating it.
Now we can argue the rationality of the current system or the concepts of "rights" but I believe the article was arguing that since copyright is a legal construct things granted under it are not fundamental rights but a way of regulating commerce; and hence something a court ultimately decides who can do what with the material.
ot sure about the other two, but NOBODY can "buy a firearm on-line".
... firearm ... purchases" - because you CANNOT legally purchase firearms on-line!
By law, and very heavily enforced throughout the industry, firearms must be physically transferred through Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL dealers), who require detailed forms be filled out and background checks run. While payment to original seller may occur on-line and arrangements for shipping occur, taking physical possession requires face-to-face meeting with a federally licensed dealer who will require federally recognized ID, run a NICS criminal background check (or confirm more detailed checks have occurred), and require legally binding statements of eligibility (a felony to lie on the so-called "yellow forms"). Shipping may only be to an FFL or current owner (not buyer).
No, Jack, there is no "age verification software that is available for
That's true fro the legal definition of firearms, which, AIR, does not include non-cartridge black power weapons including handguns and rifles.
I think you're leaning too much on the side of the business. Sure they're free to unbundle stuff and sell separately for higher prices, but is that ethical?
That's not really a question of ethics but of the economics of pricing. Offering various types of bundles allows you to sell to a broader range of customers - that's why companies do it. If pulling some items lets you offer a $900 as well as a $1000 bundle as well as ala carte offerings you do it because combined you'll sell more than separately. Why do you think McD's offers Value Meals, upsizing, a dollar menu and seperate prices that combined are more expensive than the Value meal.
You know how the sales pitch works... the salesman doesn't say "Oh you can do this yourself at home, or we can do it for $30, it's your choice." He says, "You need a recovery CD in case something happens! HP stopped including them, but we will graciously provide one for $30. $30 buys peace of mind! This could save you hundreds by not having to bring it in to the shop! Computer experts recommend getting the recovery CD!" It's all true, and legal, but is it ethical in your opinion?
While I don't like high pressure sales tactics, it's not unethical unless you promise something you don't deliver; or lie about what is or is not includes. Sell someone a backup disk by saying you don't get it when the manufacturer boxes one in or offers it for free - unethical. Saying you should have a backup disk (when one is not readily available) and that they can do it for x dollars - not unethical since what they say is true and you have the option to buy or not to buy. For some people, the hassle of creating a disk is more than $30 so paying that is worth it to them, for others it is not.
It's no more unethical than the consumer advocates who say - don't buy extended warranties because they are a ripoff. Would that be unethical because some people may benefit from such a warranty?
When the salesman says "How much will pay?" is it unethical for me to give a number much lower than what I am willing to pay? No, because it is a negotiation and I am under no obligation to show my hand up front. Neither side has an ethical obligation to give more than the other side wants to close the deal.
Why do you hold customers to a *higher* standard than businesses?
I don't - it's simply a contract that both sides are free to enter into and can do whatever research they want to before they decide to enter into it.
What's wrong with negotiating if you don't like the terms of the sale? If you, as an intelligent person, know that the cost of a burned CD is 25 cents plus 10 minutes of burn time, and they want to charge you $30, then it's perfectly reasonable to say "How about giving it to me for free since I'm already paying $900 for this computer."
You missed the OP's point - there is nothing wrong with negotiating the terms of a sale; but just because a product doesn't come with something you think it does does not mean the store is doing something wrong. They are offering a product under a specific set of conditions, you are free to accept, attempt to modify, or refuse the offer.
Being a jerk because you feel you are entitled to something that is not included is childish; and it's not immoral for a salesperson to try to sell you an additional product.
We all want our stuff at rock bottom prices - which means manufacturers leave out things that used to be included - especially if most people never use them. I wonder how many people can actually find their recovery disks and how many service calls ended with the manufacturer sending out a new one even when they provided one in the box? As long as people focus on price manufacturers will cut corner to hit a price point - cheaper mice and keyboards, manuals in pdf instead of printed, shorter warranty lengths. They've unbundled these items and made it possible to buy a computer for less if you don't want them; so you are better off as a consumer since you now have a choice in what you want to buy.
What people buying from them should do, is, upon being told about the disks and the charge for them, DEMAND they be included free, or they will not buy the computer.
If the salesman refuses, raise hell with his manager. Purchaser gets the disks for free, salesman gets reprimanded (or fired).
The salesperson would be more likely to get in trouble for giving away something they sell than having a customer complain to a manager. Depending on how bad they want to sell the computer they may give you one; at any rate they'll both be gald to see you leave.
Without metrics you leave yourself open to the opinions of others. For example if your company expands and the system slows down, some r-tard in accounting will complain it's taking longer for him to do his job. If you have a performance metric such as requests processed per hour, you can clearly demonstrate that while individual requests may take longer, the overall number of requests being processed is higher. It also lets you present data for additional resources, productivity improvements, etc.
The problem with things such as requests per hour is the numerator can vary randomly; all it shows is the workload at a given point in time - making the metric meaningless as a productivity measure for things that exhibit large swings in the numerator.
The key to developing good performance management system is to identify the desired outcomes and what drives those outcomes and then measure the driver and outcome.
It's really no surprise. The 9th circuit's one of the most liberal courts in the country and so people looking for them to assert the right to liberal activities usually try and sue through them, and class action lawsuits are about as liberal as you can get.
Regardless of the 9th CC's viewpoint; a class action lawsuit is neither liberal or conservative; rather it adds a level of certainty to the legal landscape. Rather than face potentially hundreds of expensive lawsuits all around the country; class actions allow corporations to resolve liability issues once and in a final manner; while allowing individuals to sue when it would be too expensive to try to sue individually. I would expect the business community to prefer class actions suits to the alternative of defending themselves everywhere over small amounts; even though the likelihood of such cases is much smaller since the payouts probably
wouldn't cover the lawyers fees. Still the certainty of class actions is better than uncertainty of individual actions since you at least have some control over teh cost of defense and ultimate liability.
It's a thing that varies state to state. In some states (Ohio) new teachers end up subing for years waiting for a full time position to open up.
Yup; and by district as well. I've worked with districts that had 500 vacant teaching slots; of course since a teacher can't afford to live near the district on the starting salary no one takes the jobs.
OH-IO Long live the seatervest.
I think this is a good idea, although I would suggest making the teachers and administrators attend the class too. In most schools I've seen, most of the students know more about this stuff than the teachers do, and the teachers are a whole lot more resistant to learning about it, as they lump it in with "all that computer stuff" that they've convinced themselves they're incapable of learning.
That's nice, but it comes down to a time and money issue - where do you find the time to do this course - before school starts? Teachers aren't paid for those days so either they count as their continuing ed credits or most teachers will say FU. It's not that many don't care but that they simply aren't paid enough to put in even more time.
You have to find a away to overcome their fear and confusion and concern that they are stupid as well - many older teachers never really used a computer and will need basic help; while the younger ones will be bored by the "this is a mouse; this is a disk.."
The real issue is what do you do to the kids that break the rules - Mommy and Daddy will come screaming that "YOU (the teacher) should have prevented them from accessing the site, how dare you punish them!"
Finally, with no child left behind every kid will have a "right" to access technology and be protected - which means their own personal aide to be with them in each class if the are "learning disabled" or a discipline problem that is "developmentally disabled."
Case in point:
When I was in high school (AP Computer Science), the teacher (who knew what she was doing) would take days off and be replaced by a substitute. The only problem was that my high school classified computer programming as a math, which isn't that far off; but the substitutes would always come in and be shocked that there were computers. She would say that she was told this was a math course, and that she didn't know the first thing about programming.
This happened about once a month.
You're lucky to get a sub that could teach math - in our district (a rather wealthy one) they are so desperate for subs that if you have a HS education and can pass a police check they'll hire you. Many subs are no mor ethan glorified baby sitters; a few that are former teachers or are thinking about returning to teaching once their kids are old enough to get ready by themselves actually do teach; they tend to get on the "Call them first and beg list" for their prefered school and wind up working at one school almost exclusively (and then get a job when they want to startworking again full time).
Politics and Science make for a nasty mix.
What do you mean? Here in the US we call it Republicanism and it hasn't been a nasty..... Oh wait, never mind.
>Star Trek should be given more due than that.
O rly?
So it is realistic to hear loud explosions in space from abroad another vessel, when there is no air to propagate the sound?
Not to mention that objects also cast shadows in a vacuum - such as when the shuttlecraft crossed in front of the Enterprise.
"That's the beauty of the internet - it's always September somewhere...so you can recycle a 10 year old alt.folklore.urban troll ad infinitum..."
But should entertainment be educational? Do you remember a summer blockbuster that was educational? Well, I remember learning a bunch of dinosaur names (which then I promptly forgot) on Jurassic Park. And I didn't know anything about the Titanic other than it sank, so I guess that one could count as historical.
That's part of the problem - people assume movies that are based on real stories are factually accurate - and so base their "understanding" of history on what's depicted in the movie; not from actually studying the event.
I've told it except the AF allocates funds, builds the golf course and O Club, and then asks for more money to lease the building.
They were never able to get my bill correct for the 6 months I was with them after the initial AT&T merger. I left, went with TMobile for a year, and I am now back as an iPhone customer. I probably should review my bill.
After I left them I kept getting bills for $0.0 for several years. I called a few times but the folks at the other end said they couldn't stop them.
What's the problem with sex among consentual adults?
Not enough of it?
Sunk costs are never a valid reason for continuing an action; despite that many people do just that.
Sunk costs should never be used as part of the argument to continue doing something that's failing.
I differ - sunk costs should *never* be considered, because by definition they are not recoverable and hence irrelevant to the cost going forward. You've spent the time and money and nothing you can do can change that.
In this case, sunk costs are a proxy argument for the cost of redeveloping all of the same applications in the new environment.
Different argument - the cost of development plus on-going support needs to be used for any *new* softwrae vs the ongoing costs and any development with the old. Sunk costs have nothing to do wqith what it will ocst to put in a new system.
Most MBA's have absolutely no clue how expensive software is to develop. Every time I have come out of a scheduling meeting, the MBA's believe I'm sandbagging on the "best case" estimate, the developers believe I didn't put enough emphasis on the "worst case" estimate.
Most people have no idea how long it takes to do any software work, I generally double the cost and time estimates and very rarely am I wrong in the too high range. It's the "any work I can't understand or that I don't have to do (sales types) can't be that hard."
My favorite is that data cleanup won't take more than two days - you can't define the rules in two days let alone fix problems with migrated data.
Whenever someone tries to use sunk costs to justify a course of action I show them the door since I know they haven't thought things through.
If their LAMP applications and services are working (which they appear to be), your hasty objection would be for all the wrong reasons.
I don't think so because there argument is we should not spend money on X because of all this irrecoverable investment in Y; which has no impact on the costs going forward. They need, IMHO, to come up with a better argument for why one alternative is better.
If they are working then explain why switching is more costly; less productive; bad strategically - make a reasoned argument. The sink coast as proxy is not very good because if the costs are relatively low then they may be quickly recouped by savings; if they are high management may already have a development cost number from the vendor which will make the proxy argument look poorly thought out.
Cheers,
Jim
Then, as a shareholder (you are a shareholder as well, aren't you?) you ask if that's the best way to spend the IT budget by replacing a system which seems to be doing the job with already sunk costs.
Sunk costs are never a valid reason for continuing an action; despite that many people do just that.
Sunk costs are sunk - they cannot be recovered no matter what action you take so they have no bearing on chosing an action. What counts is teh cost going forward - even if you spent 10 million dollars on software X in the past but it will cost you 5 million going forward versus software Y which will only cost 1 million going forward then Y is the better choice since it costs - assuming both are adequate for the job.
Whenever someone tries to use sunk costs to justify a course of action I show them the door since I know they haven't thought things through.
Ebay's terms of service seem to differ from this practice. A listing is supposedly an offer. However, I note from the article that real-estate bids are indeed considered offers, or, as the article says, "expressions of interest."
Real Estate is probably different given the large body of law that covers the sale of real estate; eBay sales probably don't conform to the law so it is not a binding offer on real estate.
At that price, assuming it is the same as other versions sold elsewhere, it is almost at a point where bulk purchasing and shipping make it worthwhile to sell on the gray market.
"Thus the money doesn't have to change hands before the contract goes into effect."
This is probably a mistake in the long run, because now we'll start fiddling around with when a contract is in effect. For example, if an auction can only be paid for via PayPal, and the person bids, wins, and then doesn't pay for a few days, is there a sale or not?
In US law (an probably others) a contract is formed by offer and acceptance. Since a winning bid is acceptance and the seller made the offer (via the eBay listing), the conditions for a valid contract were met. The seller is obligated to deliver the goods and the buyer to pay.
In addition - there has been consideration; legal intent and I assume the person is old enough to legally enter into a contract.
An interesting question could a 10 year old (or someone who is not capable of entering into a legally binding contract) be held by eBay's rules?
If you leave it at "once money changes hands, it's a contract", then it's simple to remember and enforce. It's better for everyone, because it encourages the buyer to get the money to the seller as quickly as possible. And the buyer knows as soon as he pays for it, it's his, even if not in his possession.
Actually, that would mean either party could back out prior to payment - the buyer by not paying and the seller by refusing payment; creating a lot of uncertainty for the seller and the buyer and making contracts essentially unenforceable. That would not be a good situation and make much of today's commerce much more difficult.
A seller can only cancel an auction. Bidders cant.
and as a bidder you are at the whims of the seller until the closing price and bid has been accepted then it's a legal and binding contract.
As a seller I can screw with you all I want cancel and relist auctions every time I see you as winning bidder. I have to pay for every relisting though, so it's not free.
True, but buyers can retract bids; unethical ones can create a second account and put in an absurdly high bid then simply never pay to cancel out their bid.
There is the second chance offer - something I refuse to accept on principal. I've gotten one immediately after an auction closed because the buyer backed out; but the bidding was in numerous $5 increments by the same unknown bidder until my high bid was beaten. The seller then offered a me a second chance buy immediately after the auction closed. That smelled too much like shill bidding (although I can't prove it)to find my final price and try to sell it at that price; another had a "second item" that they would sell for my high bid.
My rule is I'll only consider ones where the buyer offers it at my highest price before the first non-wining bidder bid; not my final highest bid. Sure I was willing to buy it at that price but do not feel any obligation to help a (possibly) unethical seller get a higher price than then they would from a legitimate auction.
I've only had a couple of those type experiences on eBay; otherwise I've been quite happy as a buyer and seller.
Unfortunately, most text markup programs don't function very well as word processors so people still need Word or it's clones to do the text creation and then must move the text to a layout tool
:))
Hm, I'm using LaTeX a lot. I do not have any problems with the text creation. I just use the editor of my choice. (No, I won't dwell on which exactly.
Since I'm not familar with LaTex - is the editor part of it or do you use a different editor and then do the layout? If it is the later then you basically are confirming my point.
Since when is Word a powerful text editor? I understand Word might be easier to use for the average person to quickly write a letter and such. Then again, maybe not even that -- possibly many people simply don't know about alternatives. Often you don't need any fancy formatting at all and can stick to plain text. In any case I would not recommend Word (or any other word processor for that matter) for writing a complex document.
Never said Word as a better editor - but it is the most common one and functions fine for most work (as do many alternatives); and it has it flaws and frustrations as does nay similar program. My point is that it is not really designed to do serious page layout but many people use it for just that; which results in frustration but rarely the effort to learn a new tool designed for the job. My guess is that since many people only rarely do page layout they simply find it cheaper, in terms of time and money, to live with the limitations of their current toool; which they know and often have work arounds, then spend teh time required to become profieicient in another that they may use once or twice a year with the attendent learning (and relearning) curve.
Of course, then you get into the issue that everything Word-like programs do is Wrong, and that people ought to be marking up their documents in some semantic markup language (e.g. TeX, DocBook) instead. But I digress...
I don't agree with your first assertion - everything Word-like programs do is Wrong - rather I think it is that people try to use Word like programs for things it really isn't suited. Such programs are great tools for automating what was once done manually with a type writer - i.e. writing and editing text; essentially they are a modern version of paper tape and Baudot code.
Unfortunately, as features get added people started using the tool for things it wasn't designed to do (and where the developers didn't sit down and learn from the right tools how to properly implement features; the electronic version of using a pair of pliers as a socket set.
Which brings me to your second point - people ought to be marking up their documents in some semantic markup language - with which I agree. Unfortunately, most text markup programs don't function very well as word processors so people still need Word or it's clones to do the text creation and then must move the text to a layout tool; as a result most people simply try to do the layout in their word processor and develop a set of kludges and work arounds. For example, to accomplish the OP's text layout and do TOCs you can insert tables and use hidden text to keep the header information from which to build the TOC, but that, AFAIK, requires unhiding the headers when you update the TOC so you have to carefully, manually break the pages or risk the page numbers being in error do to the now unhidden text re-wrapping the real text.
Then again, we do our page layout in PowerPoint via notes pages - talk about a stupid solution.
Which gets to my argument - this is where OSS development misses an opportunity - instead of building a free copy (sort of) of Office - develop a whole new and better way of doing it. Unfortunately I doubt that will happen because it would require a consistent vision and someone to enforce that; which is not the way most OSS communities want to work.
It's funny. You wrote that as though it's a meaningful response.
Regardless, it seems you are stuck on the assertion that taxes are a generally inefficient way to allocate resources.
In general, it is; especially since it represents a simple transfer of money form one area to another - look at all teh earmarks in Congress - do we really need bridges to nowhere; subsidies to keep sugar farmers in business (and competitors out), etc - all paid for with tax money? Do you believe taht is efficient.
Let's assume that's true. Two questions arise:
- What about the situations where it *isn't* inefficient?
There are cases where government is needed - which is why we form governments.
- Is the inefficiency in the more common cases worse than the alternative?
Interestingly enough, on the topic you replied to, public healthcare in the US is actually *more* efficient than private healthcare. And, even if it weren't, even inefficient healthcare is *infinitely* more desirable than no healthcare at all.
I've seen government run US healthcare up close and personal and it ain't pretty. I would not want to have to depend on it for care after my experiences with it. I doubt once people realize that what some are proposing is inefficnet healthcare for everyone that it will get ongoing support; mor elikely we'll wind up with a two tier system - low end government care with long waits and poor facilities for those that can't afford it and our current sytem for those that can. We already see some of that with some doctors offering higher level of service (hhouse calls, for exmaple) for those who will pay more tahn what an insurance company pays.
As a sid enote, why does the UK, a country with fine schools and smart people, have to import doctors? What happens to the ones they train locally?
Personally, I like the Swiss model - individuals buy health insurance and stay with a company long term - even if they switch employers since they are the policy holder not the comapny. Universal care is not a simple let the government do it solution - issues such as cost control, allocation of servcies, etc. are often glossed over in the debate.
Take prescription drugs, for example. The US government could create a national drug program - and set price limits on what they will pay - say no more than the lowest selling price to any foreign healthcare system. Now it becomes a question of whta is more profitable - stop selling drugs to the lowest foreign payers so we can get more for US drugs (at lower overall volumes) or make less profit. It's simple mat and economics - and guess where the burden will fall?