"I have never quite figured out why some developers have a visceral negative reaction to the expression "best practices". In any field, a best practice is nothing more than a rule of thumb that guides your decision making. It is a heuristic. "
Developers are allergic to the expression, not to the concept. Call it "design patterns" next time and you'll have them all worshipping at your feet.
"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, teach a man how to fish..." well, you know the rest.
Sending food to needy nations accomplishes nothing besides feeding those people for a day or two. That may be all well and good if they're hit by a draught or locusts, but it's not a long term solution. In fact,
- Food aid helps local warlords, with bribes paid to them to let the shipments pass. Ever wonder why the warlords' jeeps with machine guns are called 'technicals'? Because they are paid for with UN bribe money, the outlay of which is entered into the ledgers as local 'technical assistance'.
- Food aid sometimes puts local farmers out of business. If the local market is flooded with free food, how are they going to compete with that?
Does that mean we should stop sending food? No... but we should be more careful about how, where and when we send it. We can just keep sending them food and they'll be in the same mess a hundred years from now.
The thing to do is help them develop their industry, infrastructure, in other words helping them help themselves. I don't know if Internet infrastructure is on top of the list of things they need, but it sure is a better idea than just sending them more food and going back to sleep.
As to the idea that the 3rd world doesn't even have an industry and so has no need for an IT infrastructure: look again. There might even be room for their own IT industry, look at India where one region built the infrastructure, education and business climate from the ground up, resulting in thousands of IT firms in a multimillion dollar business. That business helps the rest of the region, creating demand for other goods and services, thereby creating more jobs and improving the overall standard of living there. This might just be what the rest of the 3rd world needs.
"I'm personally not going to go out of my way to recode everything so I have to make two seperate binaries, one for windows, and one for everyone else. The whole point of Java is that I shouldn't have to do that."
Many other developers share your view that you shouldn't have to do that. Yet, many developers jump through all sorts of hoops to make their applets run on the crippled JVM that comes with Explorer, rather than use the latest Java features. Why? Because an incompatible applet will just result in a grey square on your web page, and few of your average users will realise that they need to have a more recent runtime environment. Besides, the JRE doesn't run applets as smoothly as the built-in MS JVM does.
This is just another battle in the War for the Desktop, people. This ruling means that soon IE6 will no longer run Java Applets without having to download the JRE, whereas.NET controls will run out of the box. Developers may well make the same choice as they have before when they choose to accommodate the crippled MS JVM: they will choose to develop components that will run out of the box on the vast majority of installed browsers, and choose.NET. This is nothing more than MS leveraging its monopoly of the desktop, and the judge was right earlier to require MS to carry the latest Sun JVM with IE, as per the agreement they made with Sun
I agree. Sure, websites, weblogs and online forums and such require a different style of writing than books and letters. However, I think an English class should not focus on these.
Teach the students good language fundamentals such as proper grammar, punctuation, text composition, argumentation, and targetting the intended audience, and they'll do well with both old and new media. I've yet to see someone teach any of these better through use of a computer.
"There are some companies out there (M$ being the prime example) that don't add much in the way of new functionality, but rather repackage things, move buttons and menus around and make the new incompatible with the old. At the same time they only fix certain bugs, but leave others alone. Yet people buy their crap at record rates."
To be fair, Microsoft do add functionality and bug fixes to new releases. Few would argue that driver handling in Win XP (to name just one thing) is not a huge improvement over the way driverws were handled in Win 98. Despite the Fisher-Price GUI (which one can change back to the old Windows look, thank God), I'd say that XP is a pretty decent OS for home use. But would people upgrade to this new OS purely to get rid of some bugs and problems?
The market is demanding new bells and whistles. How many people would purchase a new version of MS Office, if it would look exactly the same as the previous one, and didn't add any new features? I've been to Microsoft sales presentations. All the people there, like me, were there to make a decision for their company to purchase the latest & greatest to come out of Redmond. You should have heard the Ooohs and Aaahs as each new (and completely pointless) feature was presented.
In fact, I firmly believe that new features and a new look and feel go a long way toward convincing potential buyers that all your old bugs and issues have been fixed. You'd expect the opposite... new features mean new bugs, but no. If you're in the software business, you might want to try the following experiment when you roll out a new version of your product: give half your customers the new version, but with the same splash screen and GUI as the previous version, and give the other half exactly the same new version, but with a different splash screen and with a new look-and-feel. (Redesigning the button icons will be sufficient). Then ask all the users to fill in a short customer satisfaction questionnaire, asking how this new version performs compared to the old one. Does it perform better, meet their needs better, has less bugs, etc. You might be surprised by the outcome...
The dismissal states that he is forbidden to make materials to which plaintiff owns the copyrights available, on or through his site. Linking to such copyrighted material is explicitly mentioned, so the dismissal does forbid him to run his search engine if it'll turn up links to mp3s.
"the bottom line is that the retailers are getting creamed on price."
It's not only price. There's three area's where retail music stores fall short of the alternatives:
1) Price.
2) Selection.
3) Convenience.
Using P2P or online music stores, you can usually get better deals (p2p is free, deals don't get much better than that;-), listen to fragments without having to ask a store clerk, and choose from every piece of music known to man and then some, generally not having to worry about something being out of stock.
Alternatives to retail stores don't have to be online though. I get all of my music from the CD rental place in the library and I copy the ones I like. I pay $2 a week to rent a CD, they have 250.000 titles available, and I can listen to any CD I want: they keep the discs inside the jewel cases in the racks. There you have a good deal, good selection and true convenience. Best of all: the rental price and the price of blank CDs include royalties, so it is perfectly legal to make copies and keep them according to the authorities.
It's not the sender's mail client that connects to the server that runs the greylist system, it's the sender's SMTP server as provided by their company or ISP. Its IP address will not change regardless of the sender's connection or dynamic IP.
"Maybe thats just a far out way of thinking, but no one that reacts aginst genetic engineering can explain to me (or anyone it seems) WHY its so bad?"
First off, I am very much in favour of research into genetics, and I am also in favour of certain practical applications of genetic engineering. I think much of the fear against it comes from ignorance, fueled by catchy labels such as "Frankenstein food".
Such major changes due to genetic alteration happen naturally, and may cause as much upheaval, but this doesn't happen that often. A widespread and frequent use of genetically modified species might bring about wild swings in the ecosystem much more often. I say "might", and such effects might even be predicted and prevented, but it is a valid concern.
"Thus, What I see is the linux community simply yelling,"That's not Fair!" while SCO continues to pound away."
It's not just the Linux people yelling it, but Big Bad IBM as well! SCO may be in for a serious pounding themselves.
The burden of proof is on SCO here, and I cannot imagine that they'll be allowed to block use of Linux because of a copyright infringement, without disclosing the offending code portions to Linux developers so they can replace/remove them. That would be like them sueing you for using patented and unlicenced building materials in the construction of your house, and demanding that you vacate the place and tear it down, rather than pointing out the offending bits, because that would be contrary to their trade secrets. No court would stand for that, especially if the material has been publicly published previously (without granting a license, mind), as has happened with the SCO code.
("Another is to distract us from the shame we feel about our decadent lifestyles.")
Yup, we've all heard it before, including the guilt trip. I wonder why these people not only think that we have to be ashamed of our wealth, but also assume that we are ashamed? Every time you're enjoying your wealth, buying useful or useless crap, giving money to charities or whatever, it's always "you're just covering up your guilt".
"I can't imagine that Apple would be the company it is today if Jobs wasn't Jobs"
I doubt the Jobs of today is the same Jobs that started Apple. I don't see him sitting in front of his investors from way back when, saying: "I am not built that way, I can't sit through a presentation for 10 minutes. If you want me to leave, I'll leave". Most people are, and Jobs was in his early career as well, in a position where acting like a conceited git will get you nowhere. I admire Jobs for what he has created, but he had no call treating the others at that meeting to such a sideshow, just because he can.
Come to Holland to see how Farming has become Agricultural Engineering.... with all the good and all the bad that that carries.
Nice turnabout for SCO, but...
on
Settling SCOres
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
It's certainly funny about this kernel developer giving notice to SCO about copyright infringement, even if he doesn't take it any further. However, the Evil Empire could use even this statement and point out to corporations: "Using Linux in your company will get yourself mixed up in all sorts of nasty legal tangles". Most execs might well be afraid to OK Linux in their department or company. These people don't know about distro's and GPL licenses, but they do understand the word 'lawsuit' and they don't like it one bit.
We can only hope that IBM will stomp SCO into oblivion, and that this whole sordid mess will sink into quit oblivion afterwards.
It would also help morale if the managers who made this mistake also stayed 12/7, though I don't know if it will help your position of you pointed that out to them.
I had a great manager while working on a difficult project: launching a new service for a mobile phone provider. The service was already heavily advertised and the delivery date was set in stone as a result. We had to work some nights and weekends (though nothing as bad as 12x7 for 6 weeks). The manager was around when we were... not getting in the way and being a pain, but checking if we needed anything like extra help or equipment specialists or the like. And in the morning, she'd come round with coffee and breakfast.
In the military I learned: "One leads from the front, not from above". This applies to management as well, and in general the managers who share their team's hardships become part of the team rather than standing above it. They are also the manager who will get the best results and rarely miss a deadline, because the team knows that the manager will be on their side, and that their pay rise and performance reviews will reflect their success. Sadly, such managers are far and few between.
Very true. And yet, it would be foolish to just let something like this slide, and suck it up like the good little employees that we all are. I have seen this a few times: sales manager shaves a few weeks of the proposed (and rationally planned) timeline, and closes the deal as a result. Meanwhile the implementation team bust their guts trying to get everything in on time. They fail, the sales guy gets the bonus for closing the deal while the project manager (and indirectly the team as well) get chewed out for missing the deadline.
There is something to be said to present a can-do attitude to management: yes, the team can deliver, if given a few perks as you suggested. (And you can bet your behind that with this workload and timeline, this will have to be a team effort). The downside is that it'll set a nasty precedent: management may see that they can cut timelines on future projects easily. Also, I fail to see why the compensation should be limited to a foosball table and lunches. If the deal is fixed-price, the gross take is the same, and the company will save the labor costs for the amount of time taken off the original planning (provided that during that time, the team can be gainfully utilised elsewhere). This savings could be paid out as overtime wages. If the deal is time & materials, the client will pony up for 12x7, not 8x5, and again the company could simply pay overtime at 100% rates without it costing them anything extra. Since this isn't happening, the company makes a very tasty extra profit on this project, and I also expect certain managers to do very well in bonus money. Again, I've seen this happen...
"Your story seems to demonstrate the needs for techs to unionize. (...) I think if you act collectivel and keep the community informed you wil have a lot of support and could be the beginning of something."
Acting collectively sounds good. If you all agree something needs to be done, send a spokesperson or two to talk to management about this issue. Make it clear that the current deal (working 12/7 without compensation) is unacceptable, and make it clear that you speak on behalf of the entire department or project team.
I'd stay away from proper unions, though. Unions, like almost every other established organisation, primarily concern themselves with perpetuating its own interests... and those may not necessarily coincide with those of the membership or workers in general! For example: a few times unions here have called a strike even after managements conceded to every one of their demands. The reason? Membership was dropping, and a bunch of angry workers picketing in front of a blocked factory gate would look really good on the evening news, they figured.
Our own firm has had some recent dealings with unions recently, none of it very pretty. We've had some layoffs, and unions were pushing for us to implement a 'last in, first out' rule. Managent didn't want that, and especially the employees didn't want that (they'd prefer the deadwood getting fired instead, on a merit basis). But, for, some reason, this rule is a big deal for unions. I'm happy to say they didn't have much influence, as they represent less than 5% of our workforce (mostly educated IT consultants).
Some last thoughts: Be rational about this! Don't start off by banging your fist on the table, but strongly suggest that the proposed work schedule is unreasonable, especially without any compensation. If they keep refusing to remedy the situation flat out, it's fist-banging time... but only if you all are prepared to take it to the next level, up to and including quitting. Because in the end, that is the only leverage you really have.
It makes me wonder: we have regular airlines offering flights in cramped seats for regular prices, and cheap-ass no-frills airlines like Sleazyjet offering the same cramped seats sans in-flight meals or drinks, for less than half the regular rates.
So which airline is going to offer flights at the regular rates, but substituting the frills, meals and drinks for more leg room? I'd fly them, no doubt about it.
"His point is this law was written by the Business Software Alliance in such a way and to use such vague language that it will be up to 'interpretation' only to the richest corporates with the most expensive lawyers."
I don't know how this will work in the EC, but many of the member states have a good tradition of throwing out overly vague laws. Furthermore, it's often the judges that provide interpretation of vague laws, not the lawyers. Also, our legal systems generally work different compared to the US. If Microsoft decides to sue me for infringement over here, I will not be forced to settle for my live savings, but I could cheerfully take them on in court. Finally... should the judge find that he has to follow the letter of the law in violation of the spirit of the law, parliament is generally quick to revise the article so that it will have its intended effect.
But again... European legislation works somewhat differently. I find the process to be rather lacking in transparency, which makes me think that Stallman did have a point saying that the law was (partly) drafted by big business.
"We have an obligation to legislate not just for one section of the software industry who seeks to impose its business model on the rest of industry, which moreover is not "free", but is actually a different form of monopoly by imposing a copyright licence system on users."
Heh, my guess is that Stallman pissed her off. He seems to do that to people a lot... She's confused about the difference between patents and copyright though.
The GPL forbids me to take an interesting bit of software with a GPL licence attached, and use its code in my own closed source program. However I am free to duplicate the programs functionality by re-writing it, using the GPL'ed software as an example. That means I can freely use other people's ideas, but I cannot freely use their work.
However, software patents actually cover algorithms and/or business methods. I am not allowed to freely use a patented bit of software in my own product, but I am also not allowed to duplicate the functionality. That means I cannot write my own 'one click shopping' routine.
Anyone who wants to can get out from under the GPL licence... if they are willing to do the work. Not so with patents.
Slashdot Mirror
"I have never quite figured out why some developers have a visceral negative reaction to the expression "best practices". In any field, a best practice is nothing more than a rule of thumb that guides your decision making. It is a heuristic. "
Developers are allergic to the expression, not to the concept. Call it "design patterns" next time and you'll have them all worshipping at your feet.
"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, teach a man how to fish..." well, you know the rest.
Sending food to needy nations accomplishes nothing besides feeding those people for a day or two. That may be all well and good if they're hit by a draught or locusts, but it's not a long term solution. In fact,
- Food aid helps local warlords, with bribes paid to them to let the shipments pass. Ever wonder why the warlords' jeeps with machine guns are called 'technicals'? Because they are paid for with UN bribe money, the outlay of which is entered into the ledgers as local 'technical assistance'.
- Food aid sometimes puts local farmers out of business. If the local market is flooded with free food, how are they going to compete with that?
Does that mean we should stop sending food? No... but we should be more careful about how, where and when we send it. We can just keep sending them food and they'll be in the same mess a hundred years from now.
The thing to do is help them develop their industry, infrastructure, in other words helping them help themselves. I don't know if Internet infrastructure is on top of the list of things they need, but it sure is a better idea than just sending them more food and going back to sleep.
As to the idea that the 3rd world doesn't even have an industry and so has no need for an IT infrastructure: look again. There might even be room for their own IT industry, look at India where one region built the infrastructure, education and business climate from the ground up, resulting in thousands of IT firms in a multimillion dollar business. That business helps the rest of the region, creating demand for other goods and services, thereby creating more jobs and improving the overall standard of living there. This might just be what the rest of the 3rd world needs.
The whole case seems more centered around the names and likenesses. IANAL, but isn't that more a matter of trademarks than of copyrights?
"I'm personally not going to go out of my way to recode everything so I have to make two seperate binaries, one for windows, and one for everyone else. The whole point of Java is that I shouldn't have to do that."
.NET controls will run out of the box. Developers may well make the same choice as they have before when they choose to accommodate the crippled MS JVM: they will choose to develop components that will run out of the box on the vast majority of installed browsers, and choose .NET. This is nothing more than MS leveraging its monopoly of the desktop, and the judge was right earlier to require MS to carry the latest Sun JVM with IE, as per the agreement they made with Sun
Many other developers share your view that you shouldn't have to do that. Yet, many developers jump through all sorts of hoops to make their applets run on the crippled JVM that comes with Explorer, rather than use the latest Java features. Why? Because an incompatible applet will just result in a grey square on your web page, and few of your average users will realise that they need to have a more recent runtime environment. Besides, the JRE doesn't run applets as smoothly as the built-in MS JVM does.
This is just another battle in the War for the Desktop, people. This ruling means that soon IE6 will no longer run Java Applets without having to download the JRE, whereas
I agree. Sure, websites, weblogs and online forums and such require a different style of writing than books and letters. However, I think an English class should not focus on these.
Teach the students good language fundamentals such as proper grammar, punctuation, text composition, argumentation, and targetting the intended audience, and they'll do well with both old and new media. I've yet to see someone teach any of these better through use of a computer.
"There are some companies out there (M$ being the prime example) that don't add much in the way of new functionality, but rather repackage things, move buttons and menus around and make the new incompatible with the old. At the same time they only fix certain bugs, but leave others alone. Yet people buy their crap at record rates."
To be fair, Microsoft do add functionality and bug fixes to new releases. Few would argue that driver handling in Win XP (to name just one thing) is not a huge improvement over the way driverws were handled in Win 98. Despite the Fisher-Price GUI (which one can change back to the old Windows look, thank God), I'd say that XP is a pretty decent OS for home use. But would people upgrade to this new OS purely to get rid of some bugs and problems?
The market is demanding new bells and whistles. How many people would purchase a new version of MS Office, if it would look exactly the same as the previous one, and didn't add any new features? I've been to Microsoft sales presentations. All the people there, like me, were there to make a decision for their company to purchase the latest & greatest to come out of Redmond. You should have heard the Ooohs and Aaahs as each new (and completely pointless) feature was presented.
In fact, I firmly believe that new features and a new look and feel go a long way toward convincing potential buyers that all your old bugs and issues have been fixed. You'd expect the opposite... new features mean new bugs, but no. If you're in the software business, you might want to try the following experiment when you roll out a new version of your product: give half your customers the new version, but with the same splash screen and GUI as the previous version, and give the other half exactly the same new version, but with a different splash screen and with a new look-and-feel. (Redesigning the button icons will be sufficient). Then ask all the users to fill in a short customer satisfaction questionnaire, asking how this new version performs compared to the old one. Does it perform better, meet their needs better, has less bugs, etc. You might be surprised by the outcome...
The dismissal states that he is forbidden to make materials to which plaintiff owns the copyrights available, on or through his site. Linking to such copyrighted material is explicitly mentioned, so the dismissal does forbid him to run his search engine if it'll turn up links to mp3s.
It's past time the USA put that country to rights as well ;-)
It would be very interesting to see what the labels are actually spending on promotion. It's not cheap, we all know that.
However recording and production should not be deducted from the labels' cut. These costs are coming out of the artists' share!
"the bottom line is that the retailers are getting creamed on price."
;-), listen to fragments without having to ask a store clerk, and choose from every piece of music known to man and then some, generally not having to worry about something being out of stock.
It's not only price. There's three area's where retail music stores fall short of the alternatives:
1) Price.
2) Selection.
3) Convenience.
Using P2P or online music stores, you can usually get better deals (p2p is free, deals don't get much better than that
Alternatives to retail stores don't have to be online though. I get all of my music from the CD rental place in the library and I copy the ones I like. I pay $2 a week to rent a CD, they have 250.000 titles available, and I can listen to any CD I want: they keep the discs inside the jewel cases in the racks. There you have a good deal, good selection and true convenience. Best of all: the rental price and the price of blank CDs include royalties, so it is perfectly legal to make copies and keep them according to the authorities.
It's not the sender's mail client that connects to the server that runs the greylist system, it's the sender's SMTP server as provided by their company or ISP. Its IP address will not change regardless of the sender's connection or dynamic IP.
"Maybe thats just a far out way of thinking, but no one that reacts aginst genetic engineering can explain to me (or anyone it seems) WHY its so bad?"
First off, I am very much in favour of research into genetics, and I am also in favour of certain practical applications of genetic engineering. I think much of the fear against it comes from ignorance, fueled by catchy labels such as "Frankenstein food".
There are some genuine concerns. "Upsetting the balance of nature" is one of them. Normally, it isn't bad per sé to upset the balance a little, when the balance just settles at a slightly different point. Some new species (man-made or natural) might upset the balance greatly and cause a major change in a local or global ecosystem. For example, a species might succesfully conquer a corner of an ecosystem, wiping out its enemies, but then bringing back the enemies of its enemies with a vengeance during the next season. This isn't limited to genetically altered creatures though; the same effects have occurred in regions where farmers used a certain pesticide, for instance.
Such major changes due to genetic alteration happen naturally, and may cause as much upheaval, but this doesn't happen that often. A widespread and frequent use of genetically modified species might bring about wild swings in the ecosystem much more often. I say "might", and such effects might even be predicted and prevented, but it is a valid concern.
"Thus, What I see is the linux community simply yelling ,"That's not Fair!" while SCO continues to pound away."
It's not just the Linux people yelling it, but Big Bad IBM as well! SCO may be in for a serious pounding themselves.
The burden of proof is on SCO here, and I cannot imagine that they'll be allowed to block use of Linux because of a copyright infringement, without disclosing the offending code portions to Linux developers so they can replace/remove them. That would be like them sueing you for using patented and unlicenced building materials in the construction of your house, and demanding that you vacate the place and tear it down, rather than pointing out the offending bits, because that would be contrary to their trade secrets. No court would stand for that, especially if the material has been publicly published previously (without granting a license, mind), as has happened with the SCO code.
("Another is to distract us from the shame we feel about our decadent lifestyles.")
Yup, we've all heard it before, including the guilt trip. I wonder why these people not only think that we have to be ashamed of our wealth, but also assume that we are ashamed? Every time you're enjoying your wealth, buying useful or useless crap, giving money to charities or whatever, it's always "you're just covering up your guilt".
"I can't imagine that Apple would be the company it is today if Jobs wasn't Jobs"
I doubt the Jobs of today is the same Jobs that started Apple. I don't see him sitting in front of his investors from way back when, saying: "I am not built that way, I can't sit through a presentation for 10 minutes. If you want me to leave, I'll leave". Most people are, and Jobs was in his early career as well, in a position where acting like a conceited git will get you nowhere. I admire Jobs for what he has created, but he had no call treating the others at that meeting to such a sideshow, just because he can.
Come to Holland to see how Farming has become Agricultural Engineering.... with all the good and all the bad that that carries.
It's certainly funny about this kernel developer giving notice to SCO about copyright infringement, even if he doesn't take it any further. However, the Evil Empire could use even this statement and point out to corporations: "Using Linux in your company will get yourself mixed up in all sorts of nasty legal tangles". Most execs might well be afraid to OK Linux in their department or company. These people don't know about distro's and GPL licenses, but they do understand the word 'lawsuit' and they don't like it one bit.
We can only hope that IBM will stomp SCO into oblivion, and that this whole sordid mess will sink into quit oblivion afterwards.
It would also help morale if the managers who made this mistake also stayed 12/7, though I don't know if it will help your position of you pointed that out to them.
I had a great manager while working on a difficult project: launching a new service for a mobile phone provider. The service was already heavily advertised and the delivery date was set in stone as a result. We had to work some nights and weekends (though nothing as bad as 12x7 for 6 weeks). The manager was around when we were... not getting in the way and being a pain, but checking if we needed anything like extra help or equipment specialists or the like. And in the morning, she'd come round with coffee and breakfast.
In the military I learned: "One leads from the front, not from above". This applies to management as well, and in general the managers who share their team's hardships become part of the team rather than standing above it. They are also the manager who will get the best results and rarely miss a deadline, because the team knows that the manager will be on their side, and that their pay rise and performance reviews will reflect their success. Sadly, such managers are far and few between.
You forgot
8. Profit!
Very true. And yet, it would be foolish to just let something like this slide, and suck it up like the good little employees that we all are. I have seen this a few times: sales manager shaves a few weeks of the proposed (and rationally planned) timeline, and closes the deal as a result. Meanwhile the implementation team bust their guts trying to get everything in on time. They fail, the sales guy gets the bonus for closing the deal while the project manager (and indirectly the team as well) get chewed out for missing the deadline.
There is something to be said to present a can-do attitude to management: yes, the team can deliver, if given a few perks as you suggested. (And you can bet your behind that with this workload and timeline, this will have to be a team effort). The downside is that it'll set a nasty precedent: management may see that they can cut timelines on future projects easily. Also, I fail to see why the compensation should be limited to a foosball table and lunches. If the deal is fixed-price, the gross take is the same, and the company will save the labor costs for the amount of time taken off the original planning (provided that during that time, the team can be gainfully utilised elsewhere). This savings could be paid out as overtime wages. If the deal is time & materials, the client will pony up for 12x7, not 8x5, and again the company could simply pay overtime at 100% rates without it costing them anything extra. Since this isn't happening, the company makes a very tasty extra profit on this project, and I also expect certain managers to do very well in bonus money. Again, I've seen this happen...
"Your story seems to demonstrate the needs for techs to unionize. (...) I think if you act collectivel and keep the community informed you wil have a lot of support and could be the beginning of something."
Acting collectively sounds good. If you all agree something needs to be done, send a spokesperson or two to talk to management about this issue. Make it clear that the current deal (working 12/7 without compensation) is unacceptable, and make it clear that you speak on behalf of the entire department or project team.
I'd stay away from proper unions, though. Unions, like almost every other established organisation, primarily concern themselves with perpetuating its own interests... and those may not necessarily coincide with those of the membership or workers in general! For example: a few times unions here have called a strike even after managements conceded to every one of their demands. The reason? Membership was dropping, and a bunch of angry workers picketing in front of a blocked factory gate would look really good on the evening news, they figured.
Our own firm has had some recent dealings with unions recently, none of it very pretty. We've had some layoffs, and unions were pushing for us to implement a 'last in, first out' rule. Managent didn't want that, and especially the employees didn't want that (they'd prefer the deadwood getting fired instead, on a merit basis). But, for, some reason, this rule is a big deal for unions. I'm happy to say they didn't have much influence, as they represent less than 5% of our workforce (mostly educated IT consultants).
Some last thoughts: Be rational about this! Don't start off by banging your fist on the table, but strongly suggest that the proposed work schedule is unreasonable, especially without any compensation. If they keep refusing to remedy the situation flat out, it's fist-banging time... but only if you all are prepared to take it to the next level, up to and including quitting. Because in the end, that is the only leverage you really have.
I never got one on my phone either, here in Europe. Most providers take a dim view of spamming.
Hmm or maybe it's because I have a corporate subscription, and regular subscribers do in fact get spammed.
It makes me wonder: we have regular airlines offering flights in cramped seats for regular prices, and cheap-ass no-frills airlines like Sleazyjet offering the same cramped seats sans in-flight meals or drinks, for less than half the regular rates.
So which airline is going to offer flights at the regular rates, but substituting the frills, meals and drinks for more leg room? I'd fly them, no doubt about it.
"His point is this law was written by the Business Software Alliance in such a way and to use such vague language that it will be up to 'interpretation' only to the richest corporates with the most expensive lawyers."
I don't know how this will work in the EC, but many of the member states have a good tradition of throwing out overly vague laws. Furthermore, it's often the judges that provide interpretation of vague laws, not the lawyers. Also, our legal systems generally work different compared to the US. If Microsoft decides to sue me for infringement over here, I will not be forced to settle for my live savings, but I could cheerfully take them on in court. Finally... should the judge find that he has to follow the letter of the law in violation of the spirit of the law, parliament is generally quick to revise the article so that it will have its intended effect.
But again... European legislation works somewhat differently. I find the process to be rather lacking in transparency, which makes me think that Stallman did have a point saying that the law was (partly) drafted by big business.
"We have an obligation to legislate not just for one section of the software industry who seeks to impose its business model on the rest of industry, which moreover is not "free", but is actually a different form of monopoly by imposing a copyright licence system on users."
Heh, my guess is that Stallman pissed her off. He seems to do that to people a lot... She's confused about the difference between patents and copyright though.
The GPL forbids me to take an interesting bit of software with a GPL licence attached, and use its code in my own closed source program. However I am free to duplicate the programs functionality by re-writing it, using the GPL'ed software as an example. That means I can freely use other people's ideas, but I cannot freely use their work.
However, software patents actually cover algorithms and/or business methods. I am not allowed to freely use a patented bit of software in my own product, but I am also not allowed to duplicate the functionality. That means I cannot write my own 'one click shopping' routine.
Anyone who wants to can get out from under the GPL licence... if they are willing to do the work. Not so with patents.