I'm sick of bad movies propagating bad thought and fears about some item. You can unplug your stove and set the stream of gas on fire. You will NOT cause your neighbor's house to explode. The flame will NOT travel back through the pipe. Natural Gas (Methane, but also propane, butane, etc) need to be within the Lower and Upper Flammability limits in order to ignite. (These limits are the faction of flammable gas to oxygen ratio that must be present to support a flame.)
The gas in the pipe is 100% natural gas. WAY above the UFL. Thus it will NOT burn. As it exits the pipe it mixes with the atmosphere which has oxygen. At some point it does fall below the UFL and will support a flame. But since the pipe has a positive pressure the atmosphere will not enter the pipe. Thus the gas in the pipe remains 100% natural gas and thus the flame will not travel down the pipe as the contents cannot support a flame at that concentration.
Yes, you will burn your own house down from the heat from the fame at the end of the pipe but everyone else in the neighborhood is safe.
So is everybody from the pipeline should one of the mines go off. Since it is underwater even the supply side pipe will not ignite or support a flame because there is no oxygen to oxidize the gas. The destination side is safe because no more gas will enter into it and it will fill with sea water. What will happen is that somewhere out to sea... you'll get bubbles.
The discussion that these bubbles are 20x more harmful as a greenhouse gas than CO2 is left for another time.
Awesome! I love when somebody brings in the Bill of Rights to support their lame argument! Because almost everybody is an idiot when it comes to constitutional law. You, sir, do not disappoint either!
The idiots fail in two ways: A) That haven't actually read it themselves, or B) they cherry pick it or interpret in such a way that it comforts them instead of using a judicial eye.
The wording of the fourth amendment includes: "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." Please carefully note the inclusion of the word "unreasonable". Unlike the 2nd amendment which is absolute, the fourth amendment is conditional.
The judicial system has already decided that an arrest provides the probable cause necessary to deem search and seizure of the suspect's property REASONABLE and therefore permissible. Good job. you sunk your own argument.
So, yes, the police can take away the suspect's cell phone. I still contend that isn't a punishment; no more than taking away the suspect's watch is.
Are you ready for this bad news... Life is tough. Everything unpleasant can be described as a "punishment" using your logic. So, again, cry all you want for your blanky; you don't have a right to it as you imply.
Noteworthy in that it exemplifies a very real problem with DRM. They did pay for the licenses but the supplier of the license basically withheld the license and therefore the customer got screwed. This has come up many times as a theoretical question: What do you do when the validator of the license no longer exists, changes their rules or is unwilling to validate your license (or in this case incapable of) ?
You're screwed. That's the answer.
What people have to understand is what "Digital Rights Management" actually means. When we hear the word "right" we always think about "our rights" not the other party's rights (unless they belong to the same peer group.) So for instance, if I talk about providing "right to free speech" you are happy because you assume it includes you as a recipent of that right. We are biased to assume that rights are universal. (inalienable, etc.) That we all share the same rights. That an increased number, strength or quality of rights is better.Basically we will tend to support any right because we are subconciously programmed to believe it benefits us.
The proponents of DRM are specifically using this psychology against us. They market their product with the term "rights" in order to make the intended audience/mark comfortable with their sales pitch/con game. Their "rights" yield to you NOTHING. NOTHING AT ALL. What it does do is guarantee specifics rights for them which you cannot circumvent or otherwise deny or share in. What they ARE selling to you is "Digital *Restriction* management". In otherwords, you are agreeing to allow them to restrict what you can do with the product that you buy. And there is nothing that you can do to improve your position in the future should they change their mind or cease to exist. This is true whether or not legal issues change as well. For instance, let's say that you were convicted and jail for alcohol sales during prohibition. The law changes and it is no longer a crime. However you don't get let out of jail because your key/license was crafted without that right. Basically if things change in your favor the license does not automatically change for you.
The United States has a Bill of Rights and the citizens generally hold this to be a significant factor in the quality and justice of the United States. Imagine how low we would think of a country who's government was based on a "Bill of Restrictions". A description of limited abilities that the government allows, arbitrarily or to the benefit of its politicians/dictators. Well that is *exactly* the relationship of DRM. It is truly Digital Restriction Management.
I've never understood why the police are allowed to punish people
Because you hold a vision of what your rights are and what a punishment is that is in-congruent with that of the justice system. (and, frankly, the justice system is right.) Nobody has a right to a phone, or a laptop, or a sandwich, etc. Taking away a phone in such situations is, at worst, an inconvenience; not a punishment.
basically... quit crying about your blanky being taken away.
Umm... None of the others developed plant-life. Earth was all CO2 as well, until it developed plant-life. Having Photosynthesis metabolize CO2 into O2 over many millions of years yields our O2 rich atmosphere.
And before the next idiot replies with "Why did plant-life only appear on earth? That MUST be aliens/comets/magic/voo-doo!"... The atmospheres of the other planets is rather extremely harsh towards plants, to hot, to cold. too acidic, etc.
Christ, What are they teaching you people in school these days? This is all basic fourth grader material.
How the HELL did this article get filed under "science".
Venus has a significant atmosphere. Saturn has an atmosphere. Neptune... atmosphere. Jupiter... ALL atmosphere. Hey, look at that! All the planets larger than Mars have a significantly thick atmosphere.
Maybe it's as simple as their gravity is sufficient to trap gasses.
Please refile this article under "Intellectually Bankrupt" instead.
duh... That's a pretty good assumption. If there wasn't a disagreement then there really isn't
anything to investigate is there?
I *WANT* everybody to be skeptical and question the result. Assume that there was some bias and look for it. Point out the assumptions and the weaknesses. Figure out what the non-scientific agendas are. All of us should be doing that before we react to "data".
It's the lack of this kind of critical thinking (both from the lay-person and from the scientists themselves) that has gotten us into these messes in the first place.
Happy now? This is what you all wanted... For the past decade I've read post after post after post about Bush spending too much or having too tight an iron fist on privacy issues.
Well, you all voted for change...
Now you have the highest spending EVER. Now you can see the beginning of security corruption as well. At least Bush had a war to justify his need to breach privacy. Obama has no legitimate reason and yet he's going to do it.
When are you all going to learn that government is inherently bad; that it is inherently corrupt. And while there are a couple of functions it should provide to maintain civilization, the smaller we keep it the better... for all of us.
Oh yes.. Blame the Governor (and with a thinly veiled naming insult to boot).
Look, the governor does not propose legislation. It is the legislators that do. All 120 of them trying to finagle the system the get the most money for their district and their pockets.
And, yes... to get re-elected in their district they will steal the teevees from, and screw, all the other districts in any way they can.
So for the love of all that is good... stop looking to the governor to solve our problems. Start kicking out the bozos in legislation who are creating the problems in the first place.
Disclaimer: I'm all for "green" and the environment when it makes sense. [cents?]
The problem with "green" is that it is not always the right time to do it. California's economy is in serious trouble. (Not the serious like.. Oh my, we need a new governor; I mean serious like in a few years we may not have a higher education system or any small businesses left. I'm employed in what's left of our higher education system and I see federal receivership as a real possible end.)
But what does this have to do with television regulation? I'm renovating a house. I want to improve my home, my neighborhood and California. But we have a piece of regulation called "Title 24" that is a lot like the Television regulation proposed. What does this mean for my renovation... Lighting costs 500% of what it should. You must have high efficacy lighting. This means compact fluorescent and, no, you can't get cheap Type A incandescent fixtures and screw in a retrofit CFL bulb. You have to use the plug socketed CFL fixtures. So "green" lighting for my house costs $6000 while older incandescent would have cost $1000.
This is a serious impediment to purchasing these lights. The same is going to be true for the televisions. They will be more expensive because they will have to be built with more sophisticated technology. People will balk at buying them. Oh.. wait... they don't have a choice because it's a draconian state law; so the only choice is not to buy a TV... or move to where you can. More people will move to any other state to avoid this crap (we are currently having a mass exodus of talented, skilled people and families). Manufacturers will move their manufacturing and marketing to areas more conducive to sales (again... already happening without, yet another, regulation).
And the end result is that California's economy and culture will slip into an even deeper disaster.
"Green" regulation gets myopic... "Since it's better for the environment it MUST be done, at all costs." Well, other factors of equal and greater importance, such as "will we be able to educate our children", exist and should be considered first. It might be the right time to regulate the banking industry but it is certainly not the time to regulate, yet another, consumer oriented product that in the last decade has already seen leaps and bounds of improvements in efficiency just based on natural evolution of the product's technology. Remember tube TVs?
Because there is no other store to sell your product in.
Wal-mart is not analogous to the Apple app store. (and thus your argument fails). Wal-mart has Target, Amazon, Costco, K-Mart, Bed Bath and Beyond and a host of other competitors that a product company could contract with to sell its products and a consumer could choose to purchase products for their household from.
There is no other app-store that an iPhone user can select to purchase their apps from. There is no competition that product companys can contract with to deliver their product to consumers. The app-store is essentially a monopoly and thus is regulated by anti-trust legislation.
There is no such "shadow". Get your facts straight. It didn't blow up. it didn't expose any humans to radioactivity. Anybody on a transcontinental flight this evening will receive a higher dose of ionizing radioactivity than anybody received from Three Mile Island. The design fault that led to its failure has been identified and fixed in all US plants for a very long time. There is NO legitimate comparison between Three Mile Island and Chernobyl; where humans specifically disabled and overroad several safety systems on purpose despite warnings.
Literally, Ted Kennedy is personally responsible for killing more people than the entire history of the United States Nuclear Power program, including Three Mile Island.
The "cost" for returning the astronauts back into orbit from a Mars landing is often quoted as the limiting factor in going to Mars. The return trip from the moon landings was practical because of the low gravity of the moon relative to Earth (or Mars). This made it easy to carry enough fuel to enable a rocket boosted departure from the moon.
The mass of Mars is much greater than the moon and therefor the amount of fuel required to launch astronauts back into Martian orbit is prohibitive. But this thinking is inside the box; using the same method as we did for the moon as though it were the only possibility.
But once you can build an orbital elevator... You just need to build a second. Send the second up into orbit using the first and then place it on a trajectory into Marian geosynchronous orbit. Now the cost is negligible to return to Martian orbit.
The Orbital Elevator is essential to the evolution of space science. Yet we do practically nothing to develop it even though we have already discovered all the basic technologies that will be required. They just need significant refinement.
And this is partly why the entire dot-com industry collapsed.
I was at a company run by the likes of you. What I say is not legal advice, but experience.
1) Programmers have an attitude that they rule the world and no task is too great. BUT they are not securities lawyers, and generally do not understand securities laws (reading the comments here is a good indication or that and a good laugh). DO NOT do this yourself. HIRE A SECURITIES OR TRANSACTION LAWYER. The 1 hour @ $550 it will cost you will yield great dividends.
No... The financial/sales/marketing/CEO have an attitude that they rule the world and no task is too great. "Sure, our programming team can add that feature in four weeks." Generally, they have no understanding of programming requirements nor the level of education or skill required to be competent at the task.
Though I agree with you... 10% is ridiculously high... for both a programmer and for a CEO/board member.
There is a corollary... Whenever you decide that you will leave a job due to some conditions there is no going back.
If you get a better offer for a job at another company it is stupid to go back to your current employer and offer him a chance to beat the deal.
It won't work out... They know you didn't like them enough to secure an alternative. You know they aren't a great place to work. More money changes nothing.
Would somebody pease provide a cogent argument as to why an "artist's" intellectually property is protected by copyright for 95 years AFTER their death while an "engineer's" intellectual property is only worthy of being protected for 20 years after filing?? What makes "Art" worthy of five times the length of protection?
I'll give you a quick answer: because modern civilations celebrate sports, celebrities and artists vastly more than they do engineering, science or math. we foolishly exalt those who makes us feel good, rather than those who actually make us better. This is also a large part of why everything is so fscked up.
So you suggest that instead I be punished for managing my affairs well?
For saving my money, for doing my investment research, for planning my retirement, for getting good grades, for sticking with jobs, being competent and all the other items that I put personal effort into making my finances secure I should pay for other people's mistakes? That I should shoulder a larger tax burden than another man? I should be legally coerced to support and fund organizations and corporate strategies that I fundamentally disagree with? Is that it?
People that think that's better is why we're in this problem in the first place.
It's not the only group. But it is the group that actively mass advertises itself as the best means for people to gain information. They promise to provide accurate and fair information in exchange for payment.
It is unethical, I believe, to advertise such a service and then not be either fair or accurate because of two reasons.
First, it defrauds people by not providing what was promised in the financial transaction.
Second, and more importantly, it creates a false perception that the [broadcast] media *is* the most reliable source of information. This perception is further enhanced due to the ease of its accessibility.
So, while I agree with you that people should not shirk their own responsibility for doing their own research, I think it is naive to believe that the media isn't doing everything it can to lure people away for doing exactly that because it hurts their bottom line.
You might want to discover that the world, and people, aren't black and white.
Sure != proof. "Sure" is like "trust". It is a continuous spectrum. The original poster never said 100%. He simply said "extremely" sure; indicating that the parent should feel, believe or can justify strongly that their decision is the correct one.
Please read what was written, exactly as it was written, before knee-jerking a reaction.
Your analogy is woefully flawed. Purchasing a copy of Office is not like employment. You didn't purchase a copy of Office. You purchased a *license* to operate an installation of Office. That is why you didn't receive copyrights. Just because money exchanged hand does not imply the same type of agreement was conducted.
Are you a lawyer? I'm not but I'm pretty sure if you work for a company and you write a piece of code then the *company* owns the copyright. Anything else would be ludicrous; it would cause so many lawsuits from disgruntled ex-employees saying "Hey, you can't do that with my permission!"
I will still wager a large sum of cash that "he worked for them; His product is related to his duties; they own the result" is exactly what we have here.
Universal enough to be a good heuristic. I graduated from USC. While no health benefit option; students could retain partial ownership (like 10% or something) of any patent. The university retained half and the professor the remainder; if I remember my patent application correctly (which was rejected.)
But again, I think it is fantasy to engage in an assistantship position thinking you are going to own your work. This poster already knows that the university doesn't grant the latitude you and I have spoke of here. Yet he thinks he's somehow "due" his fair share. Employment doesn't work that way.
Unfortunately, this is not descriptive of most universities. Mine is currently trying to cope with a budget that doesn't allow us to afford to keep all our lectures employed. Let alone get a new football field.
The ivy leaguers that you are thinking of, with incredibly deep pockets and old-boy networks, are a very small minority. The rest of us are dealing with real budget constraints and there is no profit to be made in education.
Similarly, you'd better expect that the professor will go find another research assistant to work with.
I'm a professor, though not at a research institution. Here's what I would do if I were and hiring research assistants as bitchy as the poster...
"Want to be my research assistant? Then sign this. Yes, your work becomes my property." "Oh, don't like that? Why don't you go find another professor who is hemorrhaging grant money."
Seriously, why would I need, let alone want, to deal with some FNG with very little experience,
full of himself, fantasizing that he's got the next killer break-through rattling around his excuse for a brain pan? There's very little chance that there is enough room in his head for both his ego and a single decent intellectual idea. I don't need to advise and work with that kind of attitude. I'll just pick the next grad. student who needs a position and is willing to work for the pay and the diploma and not cause me the headache of negotiation.
Professors and students are not partners. It doesn't work that way. You are not "getting a job" you are "getting an education". And you have to compete with all the other grad. students for a limited number of research assistant positions. I suggest you start viewing it as such.
As a research student you are "hired" by the university. End of discussion. Your tuition and stipend are paid to you from research grant money that is owned by the university/professor.
Faculty members at some universities may retain their intellectual property rights. This is because there is a separate contract negotiation that takes place between faculty and universities. You [the student] are not part of this agreement.
At every PhD institution I know of, Teaching Assistants and Research Assistants are employees. In fact, third-rate employees. You get no health benefits, you get no retirement benefits and you get no intellectual property benefits. Basically, you get no benefit other than an effective scholarship.
You're screwed. They own your software. It is black and white.
Slashdot Mirror
Repeat after me...
Natural Gas is NOT independently explosive.
I'm sick of bad movies propagating bad thought and fears about some item. You can unplug your stove and set the stream of gas on fire. You will NOT cause your neighbor's house to explode. The flame will NOT travel back through the pipe. Natural Gas (Methane, but also propane, butane, etc) need to be within the Lower and Upper Flammability limits in order to ignite. (These limits are the faction of flammable gas to oxygen ratio that must be present to support a flame.)
The gas in the pipe is 100% natural gas. WAY above the UFL. Thus it will NOT burn. As it exits the pipe it mixes with the atmosphere which has oxygen. At some point it does fall below the UFL and will support a flame. But since the pipe has a positive pressure the atmosphere will not enter the pipe. Thus the gas in the pipe remains 100% natural gas and thus the flame will not travel down the pipe as the contents cannot support a flame at that concentration.
Yes, you will burn your own house down from the heat from the fame at the end of the pipe but everyone else in the neighborhood is safe.
So is everybody from the pipeline should one of the mines go off. Since it is underwater even the supply side pipe will not ignite or support a flame because there is no oxygen to oxidize the gas. The destination side is safe because no more gas will enter into it and it will fill with sea water. What will happen is that somewhere out to sea... you'll get bubbles.
The discussion that these bubbles are 20x more harmful as a greenhouse gas than CO2 is left for another time.
Awesome! I love when somebody brings in the Bill of Rights to support their lame argument! Because almost everybody is an idiot when it comes to constitutional law. You, sir, do not disappoint either!
The idiots fail in two ways: A) That haven't actually read it themselves, or B) they cherry pick it or interpret in such a way that it comforts them instead of using a judicial eye.
The wording of the fourth amendment includes: "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." Please carefully note the inclusion of the word "unreasonable". Unlike the 2nd amendment which is absolute, the fourth amendment is conditional.
The judicial system has already decided that an arrest provides the probable cause necessary to deem search and seizure of the suspect's property REASONABLE and therefore permissible. Good job. you sunk your own argument.
So, yes, the police can take away the suspect's cell phone. I still contend that isn't a punishment; no more than taking away the suspect's watch is.
Are you ready for this bad news... Life is tough. Everything unpleasant can be described as a "punishment" using your logic. So, again, cry all you want for your blanky; you don't have a right to it as you imply.
P.S. Santa doesn't exist either.
Noteworthy in that it exemplifies a very real problem with DRM. They did pay for the licenses but the supplier of the license basically withheld the license and therefore the customer got screwed. This has come up many times as a theoretical question: What do you do when the validator of the license no longer exists, changes their rules or is unwilling to validate your license (or in this case incapable of) ?
You're screwed. That's the answer.
What people have to understand is what "Digital Rights Management" actually means. When we hear the word "right" we always think about "our rights" not the other party's rights (unless they belong to the same peer group.) So for instance, if I talk about providing "right to free speech" you are happy because you assume it includes you as a recipent of that right. We are biased to assume that rights are universal. (inalienable, etc.) That we all share the same rights. That an increased number, strength or quality of rights is better.Basically we will tend to support any right because we are subconciously programmed to believe it benefits us.
The proponents of DRM are specifically using this psychology against us. They market their product with the term "rights" in order to make the intended audience/mark comfortable with their sales pitch/con game. Their "rights" yield to you NOTHING. NOTHING AT ALL. What it does do is guarantee specifics rights for them which you cannot circumvent or otherwise deny or share in. What they ARE selling to you is "Digital *Restriction* management". In otherwords, you are agreeing to allow them to restrict what you can do with the product that you buy. And there is nothing that you can do to improve your position in the future should they change their mind or cease to exist. This is true whether or not legal issues change as well. For instance, let's say that you were convicted and jail for alcohol sales during prohibition. The law changes and it is no longer a crime. However you don't get let out of jail because your key/license was crafted without that right. Basically if things change in your favor the license does not automatically change for you.
The United States has a Bill of Rights and the citizens generally hold this to be a significant factor in the quality and justice of the United States. Imagine how low we would think of a country who's government was based on a "Bill of Restrictions". A description of limited abilities that the government allows, arbitrarily or to the benefit of its politicians/dictators. Well that is *exactly* the relationship of DRM. It is truly Digital Restriction Management.
I've never understood why the police are allowed to punish people
Because you hold a vision of what your rights are and what a punishment is that is in-congruent with that of the justice system. (and, frankly, the justice system is right.) Nobody has a right to a phone, or a laptop, or a sandwich, etc. Taking away a phone in such situations is, at worst, an inconvenience; not a punishment.
basically... quit crying about your blanky being taken away.
Umm... None of the others developed plant-life. Earth was all CO2 as well, until it developed plant-life. Having Photosynthesis metabolize CO2 into O2 over many millions of years yields our O2 rich atmosphere.
And before the next idiot replies with "Why did plant-life only appear on earth? That MUST be aliens/comets/magic/voo-doo!"... The atmospheres of the other planets is rather extremely harsh towards plants, to hot, to cold. too acidic, etc.
Christ, What are they teaching you people in school these days? This is all basic fourth grader material.
How the HELL did this article get filed under "science".
Venus has a significant atmosphere. Saturn has an atmosphere. Neptune... atmosphere. Jupiter... ALL atmosphere. Hey, look at that! All the planets larger than Mars have a significantly thick atmosphere.
Maybe it's as simple as their gravity is sufficient to trap gasses.
Please refile this article under "Intellectually Bankrupt" instead.
but assuming that infighting exists in them all.
duh... That's a pretty good assumption. If there wasn't a disagreement then there really isn't anything to investigate is there?
I *WANT* everybody to be skeptical and question the result. Assume that there was some bias and look for it. Point out the assumptions and the weaknesses. Figure out what the non-scientific agendas are. All of us should be doing that before we react to "data".
It's the lack of this kind of critical thinking (both from the lay-person and from the scientists themselves) that has gotten us into these messes in the first place.
Happy now? This is what you all wanted... For the past decade I've read post after post after post about Bush spending too much or having too tight an iron fist on privacy issues.
Well, you all voted for change...
Now you have the highest spending EVER. Now you can see the beginning of security corruption as well. At least Bush had a war to justify his need to breach privacy. Obama has no legitimate reason and yet he's going to do it.
When are you all going to learn that government is inherently bad; that it is inherently corrupt. And while there are a couple of functions it should provide to maintain civilization, the smaller we keep it the better... for all of us.
Oh yes.. Blame the Governor (and with a thinly veiled naming insult to boot).
Look, the governor does not propose legislation. It is the legislators that do. All 120 of them trying to finagle the system the get the most money for their district and their pockets.
And, yes... to get re-elected in their district they will steal the teevees from, and screw, all the other districts in any way they can.
So for the love of all that is good... stop looking to the governor to solve our problems. Start kicking out the bozos in legislation who are creating the problems in the first place.
Disclaimer: I'm all for "green" and the environment when it makes sense. [cents?]
The problem with "green" is that it is not always the right time to do it. California's economy is in serious trouble. (Not the serious like.. Oh my, we need a new governor; I mean serious like in a few years we may not have a higher education system or any small businesses left. I'm employed in what's left of our higher education system and I see federal receivership as a real possible end.)
But what does this have to do with television regulation? I'm renovating a house. I want to improve my home, my neighborhood and California. But we have a piece of regulation called "Title 24" that is a lot like the Television regulation proposed. What does this mean for my renovation... Lighting costs 500% of what it should. You must have high efficacy lighting. This means compact fluorescent and, no, you can't get cheap Type A incandescent fixtures and screw in a retrofit CFL bulb. You have to use the plug socketed CFL fixtures. So "green" lighting for my house costs $6000 while older incandescent would have cost $1000.
This is a serious impediment to purchasing these lights. The same is going to be true for the televisions. They will be more expensive because they will have to be built with more sophisticated technology. People will balk at buying them. Oh.. wait... they don't have a choice because it's a draconian state law; so the only choice is not to buy a TV... or move to where you can. More people will move to any other state to avoid this crap (we are currently having a mass exodus of talented, skilled people and families). Manufacturers will move their manufacturing and marketing to areas more conducive to sales (again... already happening without, yet another, regulation).
And the end result is that California's economy and culture will slip into an even deeper disaster.
"Green" regulation gets myopic... "Since it's better for the environment it MUST be done, at all costs." Well, other factors of equal and greater importance, such as "will we be able to educate our children", exist and should be considered first. It might be the right time to regulate the banking industry but it is certainly not the time to regulate, yet another, consumer oriented product that in the last decade has already seen leaps and bounds of improvements in efficiency just based on natural evolution of the product's technology. Remember tube TVs?
Because there is no other store to sell your product in.
Wal-mart is not analogous to the Apple app store. (and thus your argument fails). Wal-mart has Target, Amazon, Costco, K-Mart, Bed Bath and Beyond and a host of other competitors that a product company could contract with to sell its products and a consumer could choose to purchase products for their household from.
There is no other app-store that an iPhone user can select to purchase their apps from. There is no competition that product companys can contract with to deliver their product to consumers. The app-store is essentially a monopoly and thus is regulated by anti-trust legislation.
move out of the shadow of Three Mile Island
There is no such "shadow". Get your facts straight. It didn't blow up. it didn't expose any humans to radioactivity. Anybody on a transcontinental flight this evening will receive a higher dose of ionizing radioactivity than anybody received from Three Mile Island. The design fault that led to its failure has been identified and fixed in all US plants for a very long time. There is NO legitimate comparison between Three Mile Island and Chernobyl; where humans specifically disabled and overroad several safety systems on purpose despite warnings.
Literally, Ted Kennedy is personally responsible for killing more people than the entire history of the United States Nuclear Power program, including Three Mile Island.
The "cost" for returning the astronauts back into orbit from a Mars landing is often quoted as the limiting factor in going to Mars. The return trip from the moon landings was practical because of the low gravity of the moon relative to Earth (or Mars). This made it easy to carry enough fuel to enable a rocket boosted departure from the moon.
The mass of Mars is much greater than the moon and therefor the amount of fuel required to launch astronauts back into Martian orbit is prohibitive. But this thinking is inside the box; using the same method as we did for the moon as though it were the only possibility.
But once you can build an orbital elevator... You just need to build a second. Send the second up into orbit using the first and then place it on a trajectory into Marian geosynchronous orbit. Now the cost is negligible to return to Martian orbit.
The Orbital Elevator is essential to the evolution of space science. Yet we do practically nothing to develop it even though we have already discovered all the basic technologies that will be required. They just need significant refinement.
And this is partly why the entire dot-com industry collapsed.
I was at a company run by the likes of you. What I say is not legal advice, but experience.
1) Programmers have an attitude that they rule the world and no task is too great. BUT they are not securities lawyers, and generally do not understand securities laws (reading the comments here is a good indication or that and a good laugh). DO NOT do this yourself. HIRE A SECURITIES OR TRANSACTION LAWYER. The 1 hour @ $550 it will cost you will yield great dividends.
No... The financial/sales/marketing/CEO have an attitude that they rule the world and no task is too great. "Sure, our programming team can add that feature in four weeks." Generally, they have no understanding of programming requirements nor the level of education or skill required to be competent at the task.
Though I agree with you... 10% is ridiculously high... for both a programmer and for a CEO/board member.
There is a corollary... Whenever you decide that you will leave a job due to some conditions there is no going back.
If you get a better offer for a job at another company it is stupid to go back to your current employer and offer him a chance to beat the deal.
It won't work out... They know you didn't like them enough to secure an alternative. You know they aren't a great place to work. More money changes nothing.
Further being told you "have a strong case" does not mean you'll win.
At t=some years in the future:
Balance = -$50,000
Would somebody pease provide a cogent argument as to why an "artist's" intellectually property is protected by copyright for 95 years AFTER their death while an "engineer's" intellectual property is only worthy of being protected for 20 years after filing?? What makes "Art" worthy of five times the length of protection?
I'll give you a quick answer: because modern civilations celebrate sports, celebrities and artists vastly more than they do engineering, science or math. we foolishly exalt those who makes us feel good, rather than those who actually make us better. This is also a large part of why everything is so fscked up.
So you suggest that instead I be punished for managing my affairs well?
For saving my money, for doing my investment research, for planning my retirement, for getting good grades, for sticking with jobs, being competent and all the other items that I put personal effort into making my finances secure I should pay for other people's mistakes? That I should shoulder a larger tax burden than another man? I should be legally coerced to support and fund organizations and corporate strategies that I fundamentally disagree with? Is that it?
People that think that's better is why we're in this problem in the first place.
See my sig and learn a lesson.
It's not the only group. But it is the group that actively mass advertises itself as the best means for people to gain information. They promise to provide accurate and fair information in exchange for payment.
It is unethical, I believe, to advertise such a service and then not be either fair or accurate because of two reasons.
So, while I agree with you that people should not shirk their own responsibility for doing their own research, I think it is naive to believe that the media isn't doing everything it can to lure people away for doing exactly that because it hurts their bottom line.
You might want to discover that the world, and people, aren't black and white.
Sure != proof. "Sure" is like "trust". It is a continuous spectrum. The original poster never said 100%. He simply said "extremely" sure; indicating that the parent should feel, believe or can justify strongly that their decision is the correct one.
Please read what was written, exactly as it was written, before knee-jerking a reaction.
Your analogy is woefully flawed. Purchasing a copy of Office is not like employment. You didn't purchase a copy of Office. You purchased a *license* to operate an installation of Office. That is why you didn't receive copyrights. Just because money exchanged hand does not imply the same type of agreement was conducted.
Are you a lawyer? I'm not but I'm pretty sure if you work for a company and you write a piece of code then the *company* owns the copyright. Anything else would be ludicrous; it would cause so many lawsuits from disgruntled ex-employees saying "Hey, you can't do that with my permission!"
I will still wager a large sum of cash that "he worked for them; His product is related to his duties; they own the result" is exactly what we have here.
Universal enough to be a good heuristic. I graduated from USC. While no health benefit option; students could retain partial ownership (like 10% or something) of any patent. The university retained half and the professor the remainder; if I remember my patent application correctly (which was rejected.)
But again, I think it is fantasy to engage in an assistantship position thinking you are going to own your work. This poster already knows that the university doesn't grant the latitude you and I have spoke of here. Yet he thinks he's somehow "due" his fair share. Employment doesn't work that way.
Unfortunately, this is not descriptive of most universities. Mine is currently trying to cope with a budget that doesn't allow us to afford to keep all our lectures employed. Let alone get a new football field.
The ivy leaguers that you are thinking of, with incredibly deep pockets and old-boy networks, are a very small minority. The rest of us are dealing with real budget constraints and there is no profit to be made in education.
Similarly, you'd better expect that the professor will go find another research assistant to work with.
I'm a professor, though not at a research institution. Here's what I would do if I were and hiring research assistants as bitchy as the poster...
"Want to be my research assistant? Then sign this. Yes, your work becomes my property." "Oh, don't like that? Why don't you go find another professor who is hemorrhaging grant money."
Seriously, why would I need, let alone want, to deal with some FNG with very little experience, full of himself, fantasizing that he's got the next killer break-through rattling around his excuse for a brain pan? There's very little chance that there is enough room in his head for both his ego and a single decent intellectual idea. I don't need to advise and work with that kind of attitude. I'll just pick the next grad. student who needs a position and is willing to work for the pay and the diploma and not cause me the headache of negotiation.
Professors and students are not partners. It doesn't work that way. You are not "getting a job" you are "getting an education". And you have to compete with all the other grad. students for a limited number of research assistant positions. I suggest you start viewing it as such.
As a research student you are "hired" by the university. End of discussion. Your tuition and stipend are paid to you from research grant money that is owned by the university/professor.
Faculty members at some universities may retain their intellectual property rights. This is because there is a separate contract negotiation that takes place between faculty and universities. You [the student] are not part of this agreement.
At every PhD institution I know of, Teaching Assistants and Research Assistants are employees. In fact, third-rate employees. You get no health benefits, you get no retirement benefits and you get no intellectual property benefits. Basically, you get no benefit other than an effective scholarship.
You're screwed. They own your software. It is black and white.