Contemporary liberals remind me of the children who threw hissy fits whenever they didn't get their way. Or more to the point, people that are too stupid/lazy/ignorant to be successful, so they demand that people that are successful take care of them.
When the times required it amendments have been made to the US constitution, do you really think that (a constitutional amendment) is the only way to include healthcare in the list of things the federal government has the right to promote as part of the general welfare?
YES, we aren't changing the rules because liberals don't like them.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. - US Constitution
You stupid hippies can fuck right off. Nowhere in there do I see anything about social security, Medicaid, Medicare, or socialized medicine, whereas the common defense is explicitly mentioned. And before you even start, 'promote the general welfare' != 'ensure/provide the general welfare'. People should be given the ability to achieve, not the assurance that they will achieve.
My sister was diagnosed with Downs Syndrome before she was born, and was almost aborted. Twenty-one years later she's a healthy adult, without Downs Syndrome.
For literally 1/1000oth the cost of bailout of people who just last month were fierce Ayn Randian "free market," Libertarians and who now cry like stuck pigs for the government to coddle them as "too big to fail," we could roll out a lot of fiber rural and inner city urban areas. I for one would rather the money go to the downtrodden than to snide, fate, greedy, two faced hypocritical caviar eating on their Lear jet banksters.
I'd have to agree with you there, the whole thing is a travesty. Although I'd prefer it if the money weren't spent at all.
You people lost decisively in the elections, time to stop acting entitled like you still run things, you don't. You need to take a time out, figure out what you did wrong, and come up with some new talking points.
While the election wasn't nearly as decisive (4% of the popular vote) as you may like it to be, I'd have to agree with you. An actual conservative that won't put up with all the bullshit being spewed by both sides of the table needs to run.
Re:Agree... internet access should be infrastructu
on
Houses With Tails
·
· Score: 1
Maybe in my lifetime, we can become an industrialized country, rather than a corrupt 3rd-world country, but I'm not hopeful.
Go live in an actual, corrupt, third-world country and see how you feel about that after a while. If you don't think other countries are just as corrupt, you're stupider than you look. They may be better at hiding it, and their citizens may be more used to going to the government dole for handouts, so they're less suspicious, but it's there.
Re:Segregated pools...
on
Houses With Tails
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Cry me a fucking river. Something bad happened fifty years ago. Get over it. Feeling sorry for yourself and thinking that other people should have to take care of you because you can't take care of yourself is stupid. If you want something, get off your ass and get after it.
What utter nonsense. It's not duplicating the application, its building an applicaton with the same functionality. By your standards, Linux should be illegal because it "duplicates" UNIX. Windows NT should be illegal because it "duplicates" VMS. Also, I'm getting the suspicion you need to read up on the definition of "trade secret," because you're using it much too broadly.
Linux wasn't implemented by someone that quit working for a UNIX company, to form there own company building and selling a functionally identical product, after having signed a contract stating that they wouldn't compete in exchange for access to the UNIX internals.
Again, nonsense. Anyone can start a business, and your ability to do so has nothing to do with whether or not a non-compete is unfair or unconscionable. Denying one a right to work in their chosen profession usually is looked upon as unconscionable, especially when you're not being paid to sit out. And yes, giving employers that much power is exteremly unfair. Workers rights were codified for a reason; because employers routinely abused their power.
You've obviously never operated a business. Your ability to open a business most definitely affects your bargaining power, and that's the basis for fairness. If you have the resources to be able to compete with the company you are going to work for, you have the resources to not be locked into an unfair contract. They're not denied the write to work in their chosen profession (software programming), they're denied their right to work in their chosen profession competing directly against the company that they are leaving, using information that they learned while employed at that company.
Say I have a million dollars, and I want to start a widget manufacturing company. I decide that the first thing I should do is take a job, and sign a non-compete, at a future competitor, to learn exactly how they manufacture widgets, everything they're doing right, and everything they're doing wrong. If I quit and start manufacturing my own widgets using the information I learned from them, they're well within their rights to put a stop to it.
The issue really isn't with the non-compete, as much as it is with the NDA. At the very least, the other company can and will bleed them until they give up.
It's not "domain knowledge". They want to duplicate their employers applications using "lessons learned" while working on the employers application (trade secrets), to compete against their employer. It's not just the same industry, it's the same application. There is no way in hell a non-compete wouldn't be upheld.
You go on to contradict yourself (they can't start their own company but can work for a competitor?
You'll notice that the words are different and have different meanings, they're hardly contradictory. Presumably if you have the wherewithal to start a business and compete against your employer, you had the wherewithal to negotiate the contract with your employer, ergo the agreement is neither unfair or unconscionable.
Go read what you wrote; you said in a blanket statement individuals can't be held to them. "What the submitter doesn't know is that while non-competes are generally unenforceable for individuals in the state of California"
You missed the most important word in that sentence.
You said yourself that non-competes can only be a B2B thing.
No I didn't. Most non-competes that are struck down are struck down because they are unconscionable, in that they are unreasonably unfair to one party, preventing them from working in their chosen occupation, without consideration. In this case, however, the company shared trade secrets (source code access, development road maps, business model information, etc...) with the developers that are considering leaving, which could be considered consideration. It's hardly unconscionable to restrict your employees from taking your trade secrets and forming a competing firm. Their non-competes would likely be upheld, preventing them from forming a company in the first place. In addition to that they probably also signed NDAs as well, which would further prevent this course of action.
To re-iterate, management and sales are hard. If you don't have a marketing plan and strategy from day one, and you guys think you can just build a better product than your current employers in six months, expect to fail.
How wealthy are you? Most businesses operate in the red for the first 2-5 years. What that means is that, even after all the revenue, you'll have to loan money to the company, or secure a loan for the company (much easier said than done, you can generally only get business loans for hard assets), to be able to pay the expenses, and those expenses include no money for you or your co-founders. Can you afford to work for -$x for 2 years. If you are under capitalized from the start, you will fail.
How much time do you have? If you think you're signing up for a 9-5, show up, program, and leave, you're in for a rude awakening. Operating a businesses is significantly more time intensive than you think it is, and chances are you won't be able to afford all of the 'worthless' support staff that your current company has. All the jobs they do, you get to do too. Expect to work no less than double time for the first couple of years, and more realistically be prepared to spend all of your time on it. Underestimating, being unwilling, or being unable to commit the necessary time will lead to failure.
How risk adverse are you? 80-90% of businesses fail within the first 5 years. Are you, having made no money after 20 months, going to cut your losses and walk away? What about your co-founders? You have to be prepared to accept the fact that you could potentially lose ever dollar you put into your company. If you're not, don't even consider this.
What the submitter doesn't know is that while non-competes are generally unenforceable for individuals in the state of California, where I'd assume he's probably from, they are generally enforceable for businesses. While a non-compete may not be enforced if you left to join a competing firm, they may be enforceable if you left to form a competing business.
Do you really think that their inability is their fault?
YES, it certainly isn't the fault of anyone else.
What needs to happen? In general terms, the Western world provides free education to Somalia, and the World Bank and International Monetary Fund provide low-interest loans *without* the usual strings attached.
It is NOT our responsibility to take care of the Somali people. The problem with people like you is that you want it both ways. Before we go in it's help us, save us, protect us from ourselves, keep the peace. After we go in we're heartless imperialists. If the Somali people want help, they should get after helping themselves. I suppose if someone broke into your house, murdered your family, and held you and your belongings for a ransom, you'd advocating paying them off as well.
If we want to stop Somalian piracy, however, shooting the pirates we can catch will achieve nothing. There will always be more. Unless we can change the economic pressures within Somalia that drive these people to piracy in the first place, nothing can be done.
Shoot enough pirates, and everyone that could potentially become a pirate will realize that it's fruitless, and will perhaps start fixing their own problems.
What is needed is an end to foreign economic intervention, so the Somali government can stabilise.
That's going well thus far, after all, it's not as if they're now committing crimes in international water. Oh, wait... That may also be somewhat difficult since they have no permanent, national government.
The problem, fundamentally, is that the Western world sees the application of free-market/neo-liberal principles to the world economy as a legitimate activity, which inevitably leads to resource-rape and economic exclusion.
Perhaps the problem isn't everyone else, but the inability of the Somali people to control and govern themselves. So if you blame the free-market for this pathetic failure, what's the solution? A benevolent dictator that takes over forcing everyone to share everything equally, taking nothing for themselves. I hate to be the one to have to clue you in, but that's never, ever, going to happen, and believing otherwise is, at the very least, naive.
A ground based rocket launch of that magnitude could easily be confused with a nuclear detonation given the sound, vibration, and light. I'm sure given your democrat proclivities, the same ones that drew you to San Fransisco, you're much more likely to believe something like that is just a civil rights riot. The rest of the world, however, isn't quite so naive. Be careful, otherwise your bigotry could begin to overshadow your incredible sense of self-satisfaction.
So a company spends 4 years and $100M to hire a team of 1,000, provide them with office space, equipment, and resources, and you believe that all they should be able to charge for the game is the cost to press the disks. You're either a troll or hilariously naive. And do tell where you can higher people to mow lawns for $5 an hour, the companies here cost much closer to $25 to cover the cost of the equipment, trucks, staff, profit, and management. Perhaps you'll understand the real world a little better when you have some bills to pay and are on your own.
So 0 times 1 is $0.01, times 500 is $5, ergo there is a 500x markup. You really are a moron. It's not about the cost to duplicate, it's about the cost to produce.
The problem with free software zealots, such as yourself, is that you have no concept of business. The only thing you're accounting for is the download distribution cost. What about the equipment that Demeter used, the opportunity cost, the training and experience. None of those things are free.
You also don't understand the concept of risk. Demeter's application could have never been approved for sale, his concept could have proven to be boring, or he may not have been able to promote it. If any of those things happened, Demeter wouldn't make any money. If I'm going to invest $10,000 in a project that has only a 10% chance of succeeding, if it does succeed I need to be able to generate revenues of at least $100k just to cover the cost. There is no way that I would give an iPhone app even a 10% risk assessment, that's way too generous, considering all the potential risk factors.
Slashdot Mirror
Having just walked across my patio barefoot yesterday, I can confirm that there are plenty of acorns in Maryland.
Contemporary liberals remind me of the children who threw hissy fits whenever they didn't get their way. Or more to the point, people that are too stupid/lazy/ignorant to be successful, so they demand that people that are successful take care of them.
When did we bailout the LCD manufacturers?
When the times required it amendments have been made to the US constitution, do you really think that (a constitutional amendment) is the only way to include healthcare in the list of things the federal government has the right to promote as part of the general welfare?
YES, we aren't changing the rules because liberals don't like them.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. - US Constitution
You stupid hippies can fuck right off. Nowhere in there do I see anything about social security, Medicaid, Medicare, or socialized medicine, whereas the common defense is explicitly mentioned. And before you even start, 'promote the general welfare' != 'ensure/provide the general welfare'. People should be given the ability to achieve, not the assurance that they will achieve.
My sister was diagnosed with Downs Syndrome before she was born, and was almost aborted. Twenty-one years later she's a healthy adult, without Downs Syndrome.
For literally 1/1000oth the cost of bailout of people who just last month were fierce Ayn Randian "free market," Libertarians and who now cry like stuck pigs for the government to coddle them as "too big to fail," we could roll out a lot of fiber rural and inner city urban areas. I for one would rather the money go to the downtrodden than to snide, fate, greedy, two faced hypocritical caviar eating on their Lear jet banksters.
I'd have to agree with you there, the whole thing is a travesty. Although I'd prefer it if the money weren't spent at all.
You people lost decisively in the elections, time to stop acting entitled like you still run things, you don't. You need to take a time out, figure out what you did wrong, and come up with some new talking points.
While the election wasn't nearly as decisive (4% of the popular vote) as you may like it to be, I'd have to agree with you. An actual conservative that won't put up with all the bullshit being spewed by both sides of the table needs to run.
Maybe in my lifetime, we can become an industrialized country, rather than a corrupt 3rd-world country, but I'm not hopeful.
Go live in an actual, corrupt, third-world country and see how you feel about that after a while. If you don't think other countries are just as corrupt, you're stupider than you look. They may be better at hiding it, and their citizens may be more used to going to the government dole for handouts, so they're less suspicious, but it's there.
Cry me a fucking river. Something bad happened fifty years ago. Get over it. Feeling sorry for yourself and thinking that other people should have to take care of you because you can't take care of yourself is stupid. If you want something, get off your ass and get after it.
What utter nonsense. It's not duplicating the application, its building an applicaton with the same functionality. By your standards, Linux should be illegal because it "duplicates" UNIX. Windows NT should be illegal because it "duplicates" VMS. Also, I'm getting the suspicion you need to read up on the definition of "trade secret," because you're using it much too broadly.
Linux wasn't implemented by someone that quit working for a UNIX company, to form there own company building and selling a functionally identical product, after having signed a contract stating that they wouldn't compete in exchange for access to the UNIX internals.
Again, nonsense. Anyone can start a business, and your ability to do so has nothing to do with whether or not a non-compete is unfair or unconscionable. Denying one a right to work in their chosen profession usually is looked upon as unconscionable, especially when you're not being paid to sit out. And yes, giving employers that much power is exteremly unfair. Workers rights were codified for a reason; because employers routinely abused their power.
You've obviously never operated a business. Your ability to open a business most definitely affects your bargaining power, and that's the basis for fairness. If you have the resources to be able to compete with the company you are going to work for, you have the resources to not be locked into an unfair contract. They're not denied the write to work in their chosen profession (software programming), they're denied their right to work in their chosen profession competing directly against the company that they are leaving, using information that they learned while employed at that company.
Say I have a million dollars, and I want to start a widget manufacturing company. I decide that the first thing I should do is take a job, and sign a non-compete, at a future competitor, to learn exactly how they manufacture widgets, everything they're doing right, and everything they're doing wrong. If I quit and start manufacturing my own widgets using the information I learned from them, they're well within their rights to put a stop to it.
No, I didn't. There's nothing special about the question that would lead me to believe this case is different. At any rate, the law in CA is here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/bpc/16600-16607.html [findlaw.com]
The issue really isn't with the non-compete, as much as it is with the NDA. At the very least, the other company can and will bleed them until they give up.
Because if the founder doesn't have the ability to create the company because of an existing contract, there is no company.
It's not "domain knowledge". They want to duplicate their employers applications using "lessons learned" while working on the employers application (trade secrets), to compete against their employer. It's not just the same industry, it's the same application. There is no way in hell a non-compete wouldn't be upheld.
You go on to contradict yourself (they can't start their own company but can work for a competitor?
You'll notice that the words are different and have different meanings, they're hardly contradictory. Presumably if you have the wherewithal to start a business and compete against your employer, you had the wherewithal to negotiate the contract with your employer, ergo the agreement is neither unfair or unconscionable.
Go read what you wrote; you said in a blanket statement individuals can't be held to them. "What the submitter doesn't know is that while non-competes are generally unenforceable for individuals in the state of California"
You missed the most important word in that sentence.
You said yourself that non-competes can only be a B2B thing.
No I didn't. Most non-competes that are struck down are struck down because they are unconscionable, in that they are unreasonably unfair to one party, preventing them from working in their chosen occupation, without consideration. In this case, however, the company shared trade secrets (source code access, development road maps, business model information, etc...) with the developers that are considering leaving, which could be considered consideration. It's hardly unconscionable to restrict your employees from taking your trade secrets and forming a competing firm. Their non-competes would likely be upheld, preventing them from forming a company in the first place. In addition to that they probably also signed NDAs as well, which would further prevent this course of action.
I doubt that a judge would agree with you.
To re-iterate, management and sales are hard. If you don't have a marketing plan and strategy from day one, and you guys think you can just build a better product than your current employers in six months, expect to fail.
How wealthy are you? Most businesses operate in the red for the first 2-5 years. What that means is that, even after all the revenue, you'll have to loan money to the company, or secure a loan for the company (much easier said than done, you can generally only get business loans for hard assets), to be able to pay the expenses, and those expenses include no money for you or your co-founders. Can you afford to work for -$x for 2 years. If you are under capitalized from the start, you will fail.
How much time do you have? If you think you're signing up for a 9-5, show up, program, and leave, you're in for a rude awakening. Operating a businesses is significantly more time intensive than you think it is, and chances are you won't be able to afford all of the 'worthless' support staff that your current company has. All the jobs they do, you get to do too. Expect to work no less than double time for the first couple of years, and more realistically be prepared to spend all of your time on it. Underestimating, being unwilling, or being unable to commit the necessary time will lead to failure.
How risk adverse are you? 80-90% of businesses fail within the first 5 years. Are you, having made no money after 20 months, going to cut your losses and walk away? What about your co-founders? You have to be prepared to accept the fact that you could potentially lose ever dollar you put into your company. If you're not, don't even consider this.
What the submitter doesn't know is that while non-competes are generally unenforceable for individuals in the state of California, where I'd assume he's probably from, they are generally enforceable for businesses. While a non-compete may not be enforced if you left to join a competing firm, they may be enforceable if you left to form a competing business.
Do you really think that their inability is their fault?
YES, it certainly isn't the fault of anyone else.
What needs to happen? In general terms, the Western world provides free education to Somalia, and the World Bank and International Monetary Fund provide low-interest loans *without* the usual strings attached.
It is NOT our responsibility to take care of the Somali people. The problem with people like you is that you want it both ways. Before we go in it's help us, save us, protect us from ourselves, keep the peace. After we go in we're heartless imperialists. If the Somali people want help, they should get after helping themselves. I suppose if someone broke into your house, murdered your family, and held you and your belongings for a ransom, you'd advocating paying them off as well.
If we want to stop Somalian piracy, however, shooting the pirates we can catch will achieve nothing. There will always be more. Unless we can change the economic pressures within Somalia that drive these people to piracy in the first place, nothing can be done.
Shoot enough pirates, and everyone that could potentially become a pirate will realize that it's fruitless, and will perhaps start fixing their own problems.
Individual action is a bit pointless.
What a cop-out.
What is needed is an end to foreign economic intervention, so the Somali government can stabilise.
That's going well thus far, after all, it's not as if they're now committing crimes in international water. Oh, wait... That may also be somewhat difficult since they have no permanent, national government.
The problem, fundamentally, is that the Western world sees the application of free-market/neo-liberal principles to the world economy as a legitimate activity, which inevitably leads to resource-rape and economic exclusion.
Perhaps the problem isn't everyone else, but the inability of the Somali people to control and govern themselves. So if you blame the free-market for this pathetic failure, what's the solution? A benevolent dictator that takes over forcing everyone to share everything equally, taking nothing for themselves. I hate to be the one to have to clue you in, but that's never, ever, going to happen, and believing otherwise is, at the very least, naive.
Take your bleeding heart someplace else, go ever there and help them directly. See how long you survive, how much they appreciate it.
Perhaps because they're kidnapping and murdering the crew.
A ground based rocket launch of that magnitude could easily be confused with a nuclear detonation given the sound, vibration, and light. I'm sure given your democrat proclivities, the same ones that drew you to San Fransisco, you're much more likely to believe something like that is just a civil rights riot. The rest of the world, however, isn't quite so naive. Be careful, otherwise your bigotry could begin to overshadow your incredible sense of self-satisfaction.
No you didn't. You just said that $0 x 1 = $0.01, such that to go from nothing to $5 is a 500x markup. Kind of hard not to call a spade, a spade.
So a company spends 4 years and $100M to hire a team of 1,000, provide them with office space, equipment, and resources, and you believe that all they should be able to charge for the game is the cost to press the disks. You're either a troll or hilariously naive. And do tell where you can higher people to mow lawns for $5 an hour, the companies here cost much closer to $25 to cover the cost of the equipment, trucks, staff, profit, and management. Perhaps you'll understand the real world a little better when you have some bills to pay and are on your own.
So 0 times 1 is $0.01, times 500 is $5, ergo there is a 500x markup. You really are a moron. It's not about the cost to duplicate, it's about the cost to produce.
The problem with free software zealots, such as yourself, is that you have no concept of business. The only thing you're accounting for is the download distribution cost. What about the equipment that Demeter used, the opportunity cost, the training and experience. None of those things are free.
You also don't understand the concept of risk. Demeter's application could have never been approved for sale, his concept could have proven to be boring, or he may not have been able to promote it. If any of those things happened, Demeter wouldn't make any money. If I'm going to invest $10,000 in a project that has only a 10% chance of succeeding, if it does succeed I need to be able to generate revenues of at least $100k just to cover the cost. There is no way that I would give an iPhone app even a 10% risk assessment, that's way too generous, considering all the potential risk factors.