Amazing how well you can come off when you put words in other people's mouths. Ya know, there was a time when children were treated like children and that included being told to leave a place of business when they stumbled into them (carrying money or not).
Gah. See now that's where shit goes ill. It's ok to say that kids need to get their parents to buy these games for them, but it hardly makes sense to say that parents should be in any way restricted by these classifications if they consider the material suitable for their children.
Yes, and this is why the consumer software industry is doomed. Something as trivial as this does take 3 months to complete by your average contractor. This is because your average contractor is inefficient and ineffectual and for this level of shoddy workmanship you get the honour of paying by the hour.
It's like getting into a taxi. You say to the driver: take me to the airport. He asks you "do you want me to take high street or baron street?" and you say "gee, I don't know, which is quicker?" The taxi driver now knows you're from out of town and economic rationalism dictates that the longer he can run the meter the more he will be paid.
Now compare this to a system a lot of people use in London. They approach a parked black cab and ask the driver driver "how much to the airport?" The driver estimates where he is, how much traffic there is, etc and gives the potential passenger a price. The passenger can be sure that the price is fair because there are many more black cabs parked behind the one he has approached. If he believes the cab driver is cheating him he can tell him so and threaten to go talk to the next cab on the rank. The driver will inevitably answer any challenge with the suggestion that his offer is the best the protential customer will receive.
All that said, when it comes to FOSS you can much more easily incite programmers to contribute their work without fee than you can intice them with money.
Wow, so every contract I've ever signed in the IT industry includes an unenforcable clause for which I have seeked legal council and been told is valid. Perhaps you don't RC.
Boy oh boy, where to begin with this post. Let's start with your act of fraud. If you "sign" something with "Wont Agree" and then give that to your employer it is just as valid as signing it with your name, a big X or a smiley face. A signature is merely a record that you agree to the contract. So if you go to court and say what you suggest you say the judge will ask you "did you tell your employer that you agreed to the contract" to which you may reply that you clearly wrote "Wont Agree" on the signature line and the judge would tell you that unless you actually said you won't sign it then you did just sign it. Of course, you could then lie to the judge and get your ass thrown in prison on a completely different charge.
With that all said, let's move onto your other disturbing statements. You can't "make" an employee sign anything. You can require someone who wants to be your employee to sign a document stating just about anything (short of forefiting their life or other such) and if they agree to it then they are bound by it. If they decide to violate that agreement they will have to pay any damages that are incurred to their previous employer. That's all. So even if you sign a document that says you can't work in the same industry for 6 months after your termination you're still free to do so, you'll just have to pay any damages that are incurred to your previous employer as a result of violating your contract. Oh, and court fees, and hiring a lawyer, etc.
That's the whole point. If Billy wants a copy of Bloodstorm he has to get his Mommy to buy it for him. He can't walk into the store and buy it himself. Personally, I'd prefer it if kids were not allowed to buy anything themselves. They should be locked away from public view and commerce until they are ready to be treated as adults.
The clauses say you may not be involved or otherwise interested. You should know this if you've ever signed one of these contracts as surely you've read it. If you've never signed one of these contracts then FFS just take my word for it ok? What's with you people?
The whole concept of bounties for FOSS development usually results in people refusing to do the work. Unless you're actually offering market rates to perform a small or well specified task you're just making coders think they're getting ripped off. If you want file sharing in GAIM, just do it. Start by making it simply a directory that gets indexed ("~/.gaim/My Shared Files") which you can choose to whitelist to your buddies and they can double click on to download from you. Then you can go about your viral friend-of-friend stupidity that will quickly turn your trusted network into an untrusted one as your not-so-bright-buddies give access to some "hot chick" they've been chatting with.
Yep, and the ENTIRE WORLD has this concept known as breach of contract which states that if you sign a contract stating you will not do X and then you go off and do X then you are required to pay damages to the party to which you entered into the contract. You're absolutely right that companies can't stop you from doing X but if you've entered into a contract that says you can't do it then you're gunna pay if they find out about it.
please. Any job you get as a programmer will have a clause in the contract that states that you can't work on a competing product (open source or not) for a given number of months/years after leaving the company. In fact, if you tried to submit stuff to most open source projects that was related to your previous place of employment and the maintainers didn't outright reject it when they found this out, you'd get your ass sued not just by your former employer but by the free software zealots you just tried to fuck over.
As far as the Australian government is concerned, people who are getting out of bed at 6am and going to pick up rubbish are "getting into a job mindset" more than someone who sleeps in till noon before wandering down to Centrelink to use the touch screens. Personally, I think that is true. What I really hated when I was on the dole was that they forced me to do supervised job search in a room with 10 other people and only 2 computers. So rather than being able to sit on seek.com for a couple of hours I only got 10 minutes before the next person wanted a go (and would immediately start looking at the jobs that were advertised identically in the newpaper sitting next to them).
It's not spyware, it's voyeurware. If that's what you're into then all the more power to you, but I think the majority of us would prefer not to share our private browsing habits with Google.
why bother making an algorithm that can recognise which images are porn and which are not when you can just set up a web site where people will do it for free? It reminds me of those "enter the characters in this image" tests that places like Yahoo do to ensure you can't sign up for a million email accounts a day. They're so easy to get around cause all you have to do is present the image to a man who wants porn and he'll happily provide his character recognition skills without charge.
Yep, and 2001 A Space Odyssey made absolutely no sense to people who hadn't read the book, and pretty much every serious film out of Europe makes no sense unless you had a classical education.. unless you're trying to make a "blockbuster", why must we always aim for the lowest common denominator?
one would hope that his entire argument can not be summed up in a single sentence, let alone a sentence that appears in the summary on Slashdot. On the other hand, this is Dvorak we're talking about. That said, please actually bother to read the article before retorting, otherwise you're just as bad as he is.
But you're fucking yourself in the long term, that's my point. You're not behaving like a self-interested entity because you're failing to demand that your provider drive costs down. They have you on the lock-in because you don't want to lose your number. Other countries in Europe have passed laws that require the providers to transfer your number to another provider if you wish to switch. The result has been massive competition.
the point was that you don't need all that shit and tieing yourself into a contract is a pretty bad way to get it. If you're happy to tie yourself in and swap providers once your contract is finished that still doesn't change the fact that you've signed a contract to get a phone. Really, it's not any cheaper, you just feel like it is because you're paying over a long period of time instead of upfront.
See, no, you are braindead. If you agree to get a provider locked phone for $50 instead of paying $350 outright for your phone you will have to stay with that provider. So if you see a plan with another provider that would cost you less you can't switch to it without playing another $50. Besides which, when you pay $50 for a phone you invariably get locked into a contract for 2 years which means you can't even change to another provider even if you wanted to pay the $50. What's more, because there's plenty of people just like you the provider has no incentive what-so-ever to reduce their prices. They know they can lock you in for 2 years so they don't bother competing. The result is that everyone gets very bad service and prices from the cell phone providers. Oh, and you can't even argue that what I'm saying isn't really so because of X factor or Y factor, the fact is that the US has the worse cell phone providers in the world simply because the rest of the world either refuse to lock themselves into schemes like this, or their government has passed deregulations which force the providers to compete.
It's so amusing, I mean, don't you people actually ask questions before you buy into things? Here in Australia we have "phone shops" which are these non-provider-associated cell phone dealerships which hire salespeople to stand there all day and educate people on what provider lock is and why one provider is better than another. They make their money from selling phones and from getting people to sign up with providers who offer the best deal. That's basic capitalism.. every time I hear something about the US it sounds more and more like brainless consumers taking whatever your cartels will give you.
Yeah, but surely you can sign up for a plan and not take the option on a "free" phone right? You couldn't possibily be so backwards as to force people to buy a phone when they already have one.
Blah. If you want to get locked into a contract you'd "buy" a phone like this. If you just want to make and receive calls you'd go and buy one of the billions of Nokia 3210s or Motorolla flip phones available on the second hand market and get a pre-paid sim. All these fancy camera, mp3, email phones are just for people who want the wizz bang new thing. Those people will always be behind the 8 ball.
Slashdot Mirror
Amazing how well you can come off when you put words in other people's mouths. Ya know, there was a time when children were treated like children and that included being told to leave a place of business when they stumbled into them (carrying money or not).
Gah. See now that's where shit goes ill. It's ok to say that kids need to get their parents to buy these games for them, but it hardly makes sense to say that parents should be in any way restricted by these classifications if they consider the material suitable for their children.
Yes, and this is why the consumer software industry is doomed. Something as trivial as this does take 3 months to complete by your average contractor. This is because your average contractor is inefficient and ineffectual and for this level of shoddy workmanship you get the honour of paying by the hour.
It's like getting into a taxi. You say to the driver: take me to the airport. He asks you "do you want me to take high street or baron street?" and you say "gee, I don't know, which is quicker?" The taxi driver now knows you're from out of town and economic rationalism dictates that the longer he can run the meter the more he will be paid.
Now compare this to a system a lot of people use in London. They approach a parked black cab and ask the driver driver "how much to the airport?" The driver estimates where he is, how much traffic there is, etc and gives the potential passenger a price. The passenger can be sure that the price is fair because there are many more black cabs parked behind the one he has approached. If he believes the cab driver is cheating him he can tell him so and threaten to go talk to the next cab on the rank. The driver will inevitably answer any challenge with the suggestion that his offer is the best the protential customer will receive.
All that said, when it comes to FOSS you can much more easily incite programmers to contribute their work without fee than you can intice them with money.
Wow, so every contract I've ever signed in the IT industry includes an unenforcable clause for which I have seeked legal council and been told is valid. Perhaps you don't RC.
Boy oh boy, where to begin with this post. Let's start with your act of fraud. If you "sign" something with "Wont Agree" and then give that to your employer it is just as valid as signing it with your name, a big X or a smiley face. A signature is merely a record that you agree to the contract. So if you go to court and say what you suggest you say the judge will ask you "did you tell your employer that you agreed to the contract" to which you may reply that you clearly wrote "Wont Agree" on the signature line and the judge would tell you that unless you actually said you won't sign it then you did just sign it. Of course, you could then lie to the judge and get your ass thrown in prison on a completely different charge.
With that all said, let's move onto your other disturbing statements. You can't "make" an employee sign anything. You can require someone who wants to be your employee to sign a document stating just about anything (short of forefiting their life or other such) and if they agree to it then they are bound by it. If they decide to violate that agreement they will have to pay any damages that are incurred to their previous employer. That's all. So even if you sign a document that says you can't work in the same industry for 6 months after your termination you're still free to do so, you'll just have to pay any damages that are incurred to your previous employer as a result of violating your contract. Oh, and court fees, and hiring a lawyer, etc.
That's the whole point. If Billy wants a copy of Bloodstorm he has to get his Mommy to buy it for him. He can't walk into the store and buy it himself. Personally, I'd prefer it if kids were not allowed to buy anything themselves. They should be locked away from public view and commerce until they are ready to be treated as adults.
The clauses say you may not be involved or otherwise interested. You should know this if you've ever signed one of these contracts as surely you've read it. If you've never signed one of these contracts then FFS just take my word for it ok? What's with you people?
The whole concept of bounties for FOSS development usually results in people refusing to do the work. Unless you're actually offering market rates to perform a small or well specified task you're just making coders think they're getting ripped off. If you want file sharing in GAIM, just do it. Start by making it simply a directory that gets indexed ("~/.gaim/My Shared Files") which you can choose to whitelist to your buddies and they can double click on to download from you. Then you can go about your viral friend-of-friend stupidity that will quickly turn your trusted network into an untrusted one as your not-so-bright-buddies give access to some "hot chick" they've been chatting with.
Yep, and the ENTIRE WORLD has this concept known as breach of contract which states that if you sign a contract stating you will not do X and then you go off and do X then you are required to pay damages to the party to which you entered into the contract. You're absolutely right that companies can't stop you from doing X but if you've entered into a contract that says you can't do it then you're gunna pay if they find out about it.
STFU and get with the program you luddite.
please. Any job you get as a programmer will have a clause in the contract that states that you can't work on a competing product (open source or not) for a given number of months/years after leaving the company. In fact, if you tried to submit stuff to most open source projects that was related to your previous place of employment and the maintainers didn't outright reject it when they found this out, you'd get your ass sued not just by your former employer but by the free software zealots you just tried to fuck over.
As far as the Australian government is concerned, people who are getting out of bed at 6am and going to pick up rubbish are "getting into a job mindset" more than someone who sleeps in till noon before wandering down to Centrelink to use the touch screens. Personally, I think that is true. What I really hated when I was on the dole was that they forced me to do supervised job search in a room with 10 other people and only 2 computers. So rather than being able to sit on seek.com for a couple of hours I only got 10 minutes before the next person wanted a go (and would immediately start looking at the jobs that were advertised identically in the newpaper sitting next to them).
Yet another reason why spellbound should be in the default build of Firefox.
It's not spyware, it's voyeurware. If that's what you're into then all the more power to you, but I think the majority of us would prefer not to share our private browsing habits with Google.
why bother making an algorithm that can recognise which images are porn and which are not when you can just set up a web site where people will do it for free? It reminds me of those "enter the characters in this image" tests that places like Yahoo do to ensure you can't sign up for a million email accounts a day. They're so easy to get around cause all you have to do is present the image to a man who wants porn and he'll happily provide his character recognition skills without charge.
Huh? Are you using the "new math" or something?
Yes, because an aside into quantum physics isn't unusual at all.
Yep, and 2001 A Space Odyssey made absolutely no sense to people who hadn't read the book, and pretty much every serious film out of Europe makes no sense unless you had a classical education.. unless you're trying to make a "blockbuster", why must we always aim for the lowest common denominator?
one would hope that his entire argument can not be summed up in a single sentence, let alone a sentence that appears in the summary on Slashdot. On the other hand, this is Dvorak we're talking about. That said, please actually bother to read the article before retorting, otherwise you're just as bad as he is.
But you're fucking yourself in the long term, that's my point. You're not behaving like a self-interested entity because you're failing to demand that your provider drive costs down. They have you on the lock-in because you don't want to lose your number. Other countries in Europe have passed laws that require the providers to transfer your number to another provider if you wish to switch. The result has been massive competition.
the point was that you don't need all that shit and tieing yourself into a contract is a pretty bad way to get it. If you're happy to tie yourself in and swap providers once your contract is finished that still doesn't change the fact that you've signed a contract to get a phone. Really, it's not any cheaper, you just feel like it is because you're paying over a long period of time instead of upfront.
See, no, you are braindead. If you agree to get a provider locked phone for $50 instead of paying $350 outright for your phone you will have to stay with that provider. So if you see a plan with another provider that would cost you less you can't switch to it without playing another $50. Besides which, when you pay $50 for a phone you invariably get locked into a contract for 2 years which means you can't even change to another provider even if you wanted to pay the $50. What's more, because there's plenty of people just like you the provider has no incentive what-so-ever to reduce their prices. They know they can lock you in for 2 years so they don't bother competing. The result is that everyone gets very bad service and prices from the cell phone providers. Oh, and you can't even argue that what I'm saying isn't really so because of X factor or Y factor, the fact is that the US has the worse cell phone providers in the world simply because the rest of the world either refuse to lock themselves into schemes like this, or their government has passed deregulations which force the providers to compete.
It's so amusing, I mean, don't you people actually ask questions before you buy into things? Here in Australia we have "phone shops" which are these non-provider-associated cell phone dealerships which hire salespeople to stand there all day and educate people on what provider lock is and why one provider is better than another. They make their money from selling phones and from getting people to sign up with providers who offer the best deal. That's basic capitalism.. every time I hear something about the US it sounds more and more like brainless consumers taking whatever your cartels will give you.
Yeah, but surely you can sign up for a plan and not take the option on a "free" phone right? You couldn't possibily be so backwards as to force people to buy a phone when they already have one.
Blah. If you want to get locked into a contract you'd "buy" a phone like this. If you just want to make and receive calls you'd go and buy one of the billions of Nokia 3210s or Motorolla flip phones available on the second hand market and get a pre-paid sim. All these fancy camera, mp3, email phones are just for people who want the wizz bang new thing. Those people will always be behind the 8 ball.