Not by myself, no. But if even people want one built then they should use their own money to built one. If not enough people want to build one, then one will not get built.
How about just the road to get to the place where the next mars rover will be built? Let us give private citizens and companies the power to do all of that and see how far they want to go spending their money.
People can spend their money on what ever they like. They should not have it forcibly removed from them so it can be spent on something that *someone else* likes.
Quit thinking like a child and realize that there is a reason you are taxed, and its a good one.
The end is not the important part here, the means is. And the end does not justify the means. Compuslory wealth redistribution is nothing short of corrupt.
Yes indeed. I've read and thoroughly enjoyed most of his books. But this one? It still has a bookmark in it about a third of the way along. I just could not finish - no offense intended to a great writer, but it was so hard to enjoy.
I have a home made CNC machine that drives a laminate trimmer (like a baby router). It seems like the things you can make are only limited by your imagination. The advantage of it over a laser cutter is that is will do 2.5D cutting, laser only does 2D. The downsides are many though: noisy, much slower, you can't "crash" a laser cutter, bits wear out, material fixturing. But you get to control the depth of cut which allows for some very nice finished results (pocketing, carving, facing off - not possible with a laser).
"Yeah... something tells me that "kept alive" means "killed" in this study."
It's a rabbit. If sacraficing a creature so stupid to not even be self aware can save hundreds or thousands of human lives, so be it. Science is cruel, but well worthwhile.
How do you know they're not self aware, and if you don't know 100% that they're not is it worth the risk?
That's their problem. And quite frankly, that's a shitty fucking excuse for companies to bar the voluntary disclosure of salary.
Then don't agree to such a clause if you are presented with one. That's your choice. And don't give me crap about them having all of the power. It's not like that single employer is the only one out there. Negotiating contracts is about compromise. There is a certain amount of give and take on both sides.
No, there most certainly wasn't. I was there and I was involved. You weren't.
Do you think you would know what happened more than I?
Concerning this? Yes, I do. If you had refused to have that clause, they would have declined to do business with you,
That is most certainly untrue in this case. You are speaking from a position of ignorance - you were not involved in the contract negotiation and I was. How on Earth could yo uknow anything about it, unless you posess some magical powers us mere mortals do not.
thus using their economic force to coerce you into agreeing. And while you might have the ability to turn them down, I guarantee that not everyone they work with does.
This is not about anyone else they work with. It's about them and I. The agreements they come up with with other people are not my business.
WRONG. You also need to know what the company is willing to pay. Further, if you're happy with what you've got, what's the harm in having it disclosed?
Because other people may not be happy with what I get.
No I'm not. "Hey, we'll give you a $30 an hour pay rise but we'd rather you didn't tell anyone. Do you agree?". And you're saying the correct answer is "no"? Really?
Yes, you are. The correct answer is that they have no fucking right whatsoever to even ask that you not tell anyone.
They can ask me to come to work to clown shoes and suspenders. Doesn't mean I have to agree to it. The point is whether contracts are agreed upon with mutual and voluntary consent. If they are, then what's the issue?
Yes, but the decision whether to disclose that information should be yours and yours alone. The company should have absolutely no say in it.
And the decision to withhold that information from fellow employees is mine and mine alone and if I agree to not disclose that information then that's my choice. If I agree to having that cluase in a contract then that is my choice too.
I wouldn't dare ask someone how much they earned unless I was very friendly with them - it's none of my business
So don't. No one is trying to force you to disclose compensation. What we're arguing about is when employers decide they have the right to remove that choice from you.
In my case it was a clients, not an employer. There's a big difference.
They are not my employer, they are my client. And they didn't demand, they negotiated.
No, they forced something in there that they should have no fucking right to even bring up in the first place.
No force was involved. Do you think you would know what happened more than I? No, of course not. I've told it like it is. If you don't accept that, fine, but don't accuse me of lying. I have not.
No it isn't, but congratulations on not only drinking the Kool-Aid, but preaching it. What people in my industry make is quite literally my business.
In your industry, sure. In the company you work for? Not so much. What I earn is between myself and my clients. I wouldn't dare ask someone how much they earned unless I was very friendly with them - it's none of my business. That holds true whether they supply services to the same company I do or not.
When my contract comes due I look at a few source for determining how much I want to get paid. This includes inflation, my position in the company, the market rate for my services and most importantly what I know I can get elsewhere.. Not one do I ask fellow workers of the same company what they're getting paid.
A contract is only a two-way agreement when both sides have equal bargaining power.
When one side holds all the cards and is in a position to dictate terms, it is very much a one way take it or leave it agreement usually riddled with the company getting all rights and you getting none.
And in an economy where people are desperate for jobs and willing to sell their souls to the lowest bidder, the boss will win.
That may be true in some cases. Maybe in most. But not in all. There are times when the seller of services has the upper hand over the buyer. It depends on supply and demand.
To negotiate you need to know what other vendors of you client (and employees of the client) are making.
What you need to know if what you personally are willing to work for. That's what matters ina negotiation. If you get something you are happy with then there is no issue, regardless of how little or how much someone else gets.
There's nothing unethical about that at all. A contract is a two way agreement. They have to agree and so do I. So long as both parties agree, what's the issue?
The issue is that it is an attempt to control the flow of information so that they can treat people unfairly. The only reason you would ever need such a provision is if you were already or were planning to pay people below their value, and wanted to keep them from finding out.
Or you were wanting to pay someone above their value.
Just because one person is paid more than another doesn't mean anyone is being paid below their value. In the interests of harmony it's sometimes best for those being paid less not to find out what those being paid more are paid.
If those being paid less are not happy with their pay, then they should say something about it. At the end of the day what matters is whether you're happy with what you're getting and whether you came to a mutual agreement with your employer or client. If someone else came to a different agreement then good for them.
So at best, it's an unnecessary provision. More likely, it is there to enable unfair treatment and is unethical.
Furthermore, when one party has almost all the bargaining power (as is the case in most employment agreements), they can abuse it to make demands they couldn't otherwise get away with.
It's not always the employer or client that has all of the bargaining power. Senior technical people who hold a lot of knowledge about processes and systems that keep the business running have a lot of bargaining power. Especially when those employees/contractors are being head hunted by other companies.
While that may not be your case, most people certainly wouldn't agree to such a provision if they had a real choice in the matter. It not only does not benefit them, it indirectly hurts them by making it difficult for workers in the marketplace to get information about what the market value of their skills is.
And they didn't demand, they negotiated.
Regardless of the level of politeness they used, it is a perfectly reasonable use of the term to say they demanded that of you. You're splitting hairs.
No I'm not. "Hey, we'll give you a $30 an hour pay rise but we'd rather you didn't tell anyone. Do you agree?". And you're saying the correct answer is "no"? Really?
It should bother you, as it's completely unethical (and hopefully illegal, but obviously that depends on laws where you live) to put such a stipulation in
There's nothing unethical about that at all. A contract is a two way agreement. They have to agree and so do I. So long as both parties agree, what's the issue?
and reflects extremely poorly on the character of those in charge at your employer. If you choose not to share your wages/salary with anyone else, that is your prerogative. Your employer still has no right to demand that you not share that information.
They are not my employer, they are my client. And they didn't demand, they negotiated.
It's in my contract not to reveal my rate to other employees or contractors. It doesn't bother me - what I earn is my business and what someone else earns is theirs.
Um, I'm assuming you don't live in the US, or are new to credit cards. Roughly 80% of the restaurants I've eaten in take your card with them to their register, swipe it, and then return it to you. Pretty common.
I live in New Zealand. Paying by "plastic" is pretty much the norm here, and increasingly so the retailer never gets their hands on our cards. The vast majority of restaurants here have you pay on your way out at the counter.
I have not been to a restaurant that does this, and I eat out a lot. I always pay on my way out, and I do this by inserting my card into the little machine and entering my details. My card never leaves my possession (and nor should it). You're not assuming I live where you do are you?
Slashdot Mirror
So you plan to build the next mars rover?
Not by myself, no. But if even people want one built then they should use their own money to built one. If not enough people want to build one, then one will not get built.
How about just the road to get to the place where the next mars rover will be built? Let us give private citizens and companies the power to do all of that and see how far they want to go spending their money.
People can spend their money on what ever they like. They should not have it forcibly removed from them so it can be spent on something that *someone else* likes.
Quit thinking like a child and realize that there is a reason you are taxed, and its a good one.
The end is not the important part here, the means is. And the end does not justify the means. Compuslory wealth redistribution is nothing short of corrupt.
The money would be much better given back to the people it was taken from!
Yes indeed. I've read and thoroughly enjoyed most of his books. But this one? It still has a bookmark in it about a third of the way along. I just could not finish - no offense intended to a great writer, but it was so hard to enjoy.
"proportional representation" isn't democracy, it's just a fancy name for mob rule
"Democracy" is just a fancy name for mob rule.
Step 1: Discover Higgs Boson.
Step 2: Find a way to weaponise it.
I have a home made CNC machine that drives a laminate trimmer (like a baby router). It seems like the things you can make are only limited by your imagination. The advantage of it over a laser cutter is that is will do 2.5D cutting, laser only does 2D. The downsides are many though: noisy, much slower, you can't "crash" a laser cutter, bits wear out, material fixturing. But you get to control the depth of cut which allows for some very nice finished results (pocketing, carving, facing off - not possible with a laser).
"Yeah... something tells me that "kept alive" means "killed" in this study."
It's a rabbit. If sacraficing a creature so stupid to not even be self aware can save hundreds or thousands of human lives, so be it. Science is cruel, but well worthwhile.
How do you know they're not self aware, and if you don't know 100% that they're not is it worth the risk?
You're not a real pirate unless you're wearing an eye patch.
That's their problem. And quite frankly, that's a shitty fucking excuse for companies to bar the voluntary disclosure of salary.
Then don't agree to such a clause if you are presented with one. That's your choice. And don't give me crap about them having all of the power. It's not like that single employer is the only one out there. Negotiating contracts is about compromise. There is a certain amount of give and take on both sides.
No force was involved.
Yes, there was.
No, there most certainly wasn't. I was there and I was involved. You weren't.
Do you think you would know what happened more than I?
Concerning this? Yes, I do. If you had refused to have that clause, they would have declined to do business with you,
That is most certainly untrue in this case. You are speaking from a position of ignorance - you were not involved in the contract negotiation and I was. How on Earth could yo uknow anything about it, unless you posess some magical powers us mere mortals do not.
thus using their economic force to coerce you into agreeing. And while you might have the ability to turn them down, I guarantee that not everyone they work with does.
This is not about anyone else they work with. It's about them and I. The agreements they come up with with other people are not my business.
WRONG. You also need to know what the company is willing to pay. Further, if you're happy with what you've got, what's the harm in having it disclosed?
Because other people may not be happy with what I get.
No I'm not. "Hey, we'll give you a $30 an hour pay rise but we'd rather you didn't tell anyone. Do you agree?". And you're saying the correct answer is "no"? Really?
Yes, you are. The correct answer is that they have no fucking right whatsoever to even ask that you not tell anyone.
They can ask me to come to work to clown shoes and suspenders. Doesn't mean I have to agree to it. The point is whether contracts are agreed upon with mutual and voluntary consent. If they are, then what's the issue?
Yes, but the decision whether to disclose that information should be yours and yours alone. The company should have absolutely no say in it.
And the decision to withhold that information from fellow employees is mine and mine alone and if I agree to not disclose that information then that's my choice. If I agree to having that cluase in a contract then that is my choice too.
I wouldn't dare ask someone how much they earned unless I was very friendly with them - it's none of my business
So don't. No one is trying to force you to disclose compensation. What we're arguing about is when employers decide they have the right to remove that choice from you.
In my case it was a clients, not an employer. There's a big difference.
They are not my employer, they are my client. And they didn't demand, they negotiated.
No, they forced something in there that they should have no fucking right to even bring up in the first place.
No force was involved. Do you think you would know what happened more than I? No, of course not. I've told it like it is. If you don't accept that, fine, but don't accuse me of lying. I have not.
>They are not my employer, they are my client.
Ah! The labor laws are really hard for NRLB to apply when you are your own boss I'd imagine; do they even apply?
Not sure - it's not relevant to me as that organisation has no power where I live.
No it isn't, but congratulations on not only drinking the Kool-Aid, but preaching it. What people in my industry make is quite literally my business.
In your industry, sure. In the company you work for? Not so much. What I earn is between myself and my clients. I wouldn't dare ask someone how much they earned unless I was very friendly with them - it's none of my business. That holds true whether they supply services to the same company I do or not.
When my contract comes due I look at a few source for determining how much I want to get paid. This includes inflation, my position in the company, the market rate for my services and most importantly what I know I can get elsewhere.. Not one do I ask fellow workers of the same company what they're getting paid.
A contract is only a two-way agreement when both sides have equal bargaining power.
When one side holds all the cards and is in a position to dictate terms, it is very much a one way take it or leave it agreement usually riddled with the company getting all rights and you getting none.
And in an economy where people are desperate for jobs and willing to sell their souls to the lowest bidder, the boss will win.
That may be true in some cases. Maybe in most. But not in all. There are times when the seller of services has the upper hand over the buyer. It depends on supply and demand.
If you are offered a significant pay rise with the condition to keep it to yourself, would you be wrong to accept? I don't think so.
To negotiate you need to know what other vendors of you client (and employees of the client) are making.
What you need to know if what you personally are willing to work for. That's what matters ina negotiation. If you get something you are happy with then there is no issue, regardless of how little or how much someone else gets.
There's nothing unethical about that at all. A contract is a two way agreement. They have to agree and so do I. So long as both parties agree, what's the issue?
The issue is that it is an attempt to control the flow of information so that they can treat people unfairly. The only reason you would ever need such a provision is if you were already or were planning to pay people below their value, and wanted to keep them from finding out.
Or you were wanting to pay someone above their value.
Just because one person is paid more than another doesn't mean anyone is being paid below their value. In the interests of harmony it's sometimes best for those being paid less not to find out what those being paid more are paid.
If those being paid less are not happy with their pay, then they should say something about it. At the end of the day what matters is whether you're happy with what you're getting and whether you came to a mutual agreement with your employer or client. If someone else came to a different agreement then good for them.
So at best, it's an unnecessary provision. More likely, it is there to enable unfair treatment and is unethical.
Furthermore, when one party has almost all the bargaining power (as is the case in most employment agreements), they can abuse it to make demands they couldn't otherwise get away with.
It's not always the employer or client that has all of the bargaining power. Senior technical people who hold a lot of knowledge about processes and systems that keep the business running have a lot of bargaining power. Especially when those employees/contractors are being head hunted by other companies.
While that may not be your case, most people certainly wouldn't agree to such a provision if they had a real choice in the matter. It not only does not benefit them, it indirectly hurts them by making it difficult for workers in the marketplace to get information about what the market value of their skills is.
And they didn't demand, they negotiated.
Regardless of the level of politeness they used, it is a perfectly reasonable use of the term to say they demanded that of you. You're splitting hairs.
No I'm not. "Hey, we'll give you a $30 an hour pay rise but we'd rather you didn't tell anyone. Do you agree?". And you're saying the correct answer is "no"? Really?
It should bother you, as it's completely unethical (and hopefully illegal, but obviously that depends on laws where you live) to put such a stipulation in
There's nothing unethical about that at all. A contract is a two way agreement. They have to agree and so do I. So long as both parties agree, what's the issue?
and reflects extremely poorly on the character of those in charge at your employer. If you choose not to share your wages/salary with anyone else, that is your prerogative. Your employer still has no right to demand that you not share that information.
They are not my employer, they are my client. And they didn't demand, they negotiated.
It's in my contract not to reveal my rate to other employees or contractors. It doesn't bother me - what I earn is my business and what someone else earns is theirs.
Um, I'm assuming you don't live in the US, or are new to credit cards. Roughly 80% of the restaurants I've eaten in take your card with them to their register, swipe it, and then return it to you. Pretty common.
I live in New Zealand. Paying by "plastic" is pretty much the norm here, and increasingly so the retailer never gets their hands on our cards. The vast majority of restaurants here have you pay on your way out at the counter.
I have not been to a restaurant that does this, and I eat out a lot. I always pay on my way out, and I do this by inserting my card into the little machine and entering my details. My card never leaves my possession (and nor should it). You're not assuming I live where you do are you?