Sorry for my ignorance of the term salary. To me, salary is what you get paid for the amount of work you do. You do more work, you get paid more. I've never understood the term to mean "fixed amount regardless of hours", but obviously I was wrong.
To the question asker: No way! If they get more from you (work) then you deserve more from them (money). Absurd to work any other way.
"Actually, he did say that all are salaried. Since he stated that, presumably he meant all are on monthly/yearly salaries and that his boss is, in fact, asking him to do more work for the same money."
Ah well if that's the case then it's a nonsense. As many, many, many other people have said in this discussion, he shouldn't be doing extra unpaid work unless he stands to benefit directly from the company's success. (And I don't mean that he gets to keep his job, I mean that he gets a cut of the profit, whether that's shares or a bonus, etc.)
By the way thanks to the person who modded my comment as funny. Not what I was going for lol:-)
Six months ago I began working solo on a commercial programming project. I've been working 16-18 hours each day, most days, because that's what I feel is required to bring the project to market in a reasonable time. It would be great if I had a team of people and we could all work 8-hour-days, but I don't, so long hours are required.
It sounds like your boss is in a similar situation. He wants to market a product of X size, requiring Y amount of work, in Z time. What he's asking you is: Are you, and the rest of the staff, the right people for this project? Are you willing to do Y amount of work in Z time?
The tone of your question to slashdot is, I think: How do I tell my boss that this is an unreasonable request, while still keeping my job? In other words: How do I dictate the terms of my employment?
Really the question should be to yourself, and it should be exactly the same question that your boss is asking you: Are you the right person for this job?
It's perfectly acceptable for you to decide that you aren't the right person. Maybe all of the other staff are the wrong people too. But the job is what it is. I don't bat an eyelid to working a 12-hour day, but maybe that isn't right for you, and that's fine.
Good luck, anyway. I hope the situation can be resolved in a way that works for everyone.
(Note: my answer would be very different if your boss was asking you to do more work for the same money, but as you didn't say anything about that I assume that isn't the case.)
I'm no Apple fan, but to be fair, when I hear "app store", I think of Apple. When I hear of another company's service being referred to as an "app store", I think of Apple. Apple has made the term "app store" what it is. I don't think Microsoft would be too pleased about Apple beinging out their new Windows interface for iDevices.
Regardless of the ethics, controversy, or popularity of whatever is being regulated, regulation should, once set, remain largely unchanged. If the government sets out rules for business to operate, then a business following those rules -- not "working around" them -- should be able to continue trading. If the government then adjusts the regulatory rules, specifically to shut down certain businesses, those business should be able to claim compensation, which of course would come from our taxes. We may or may not like what a particular company is doing, but if we (via government) tell them it's okay to go ahead and start-up, we shouldn't set about shutting them down shortly after.
What I'm trying to say is, governments shouldn't mess people around by giving them a set of rules and then changing the rules.
I really, really, really, from the bottom of my heart, with a stomach-churning sickness and bile rising in my throat, hate this trend of trivial and obvious technology patents. They all boil down to the same thing: "We saw someone else doing this, and we think it's a good idea, so we want to be the only people that are allowed to do it from now on."
The source signed a non-disclosure agreement, on the basis that he was trustworthy, and then disclosed the document anyway. What an unsavoury character.
We don't know _how_ he said it. All we how is how the reporter paraphrased it. And it isn't even a paraphrased quote as such, it's merely a summary of something that was allegedly said.
What is the point of writing about 2012 being "absurd"? It was a special effects action movie intended to entertain people in a cinema for 2 hours. Mission accomplished, for me and millions of other people. The same team that made 2012 also made films about alien invasions and giant lizards, so they aren't exactly aiming for hard realism and non-absurdity.
Someone at NASA isn't making an interesting or valid criticism, they are demonstrating their own lack of humour.
Nobody's saying that the teachers can't write their own songs for the kids to sing for free. But if they (the teachers / daycare centres) want to use someone else's songs as part of their profession then they're being told to pay. Just like they pay for books, videos, class trips, etc.
I totally get the "oh my god this is awful telling those poor little kiddies that they must pay to sing" reaction. But that isn't what's happening. What's happening is that professional people (teachers) and for-profit businesses (daycare centres) are being told that they can't use someone else's professional work for free.
Daycare centres are busineses. Carers are professionals earning a living from their work. If they want to use a musician's song as part of their work then why shouldn't they have to pay? Why should this beneficial material be provided freely to them?
People should be able to choose the vehicle they want to keep their family safe.
While it is unavoidable that the larger, more powerful SUVs will be too expensive for some people, what I condemn is any move by the _state_ to price people out of the SUV market based on relatively trivial matters such as CO2 emissions.
Rich people will still be able to buy, tax and insure their SUVs, while poorer people will be more likely to be limited to smaller, weaker cars that will come off worse in a crash.
The safety issue really concerns me. I don't want people being forced by legislation to buy smaller, weaker cars, for city driving, because most people can only afford one car so they'll also be taking those same small, weak cars out on fast roads.
I'm a news photographer and I often attend accident scenes. As a rule, whenever there is an SUV involved, the occupants of the SUV survive and the occupants of the car _all_ die.
I'm going to go against the general concensus and say that I wasn't at all impressed. The idea itself is cool, and has a huge amount of potential, but the execution was poor. The choice of lens is too wide (don't use wide angle when you're going to be panning / tilting), the camera has part of the plane in shot (again due to the lens being too wide), and apparently there was nothing done to avoid rain drops on the lens (would have been easier to avoid with a less-wide lens). Honestly, nearly everything that _could_ be done wrong, _was_ done wrong, and it was all because they didn't think enough about lens choice. The only bit they did right was not crashing the plane.
Every random / abusive / tyrannical decision by Apple reminds me why I sold my iPhone and swore I would never buy another Apple product. Every time I lean closer to buying an iPad, Apple does something horrible and my credit card breathes a sigh of relief. Thank you Apple.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry for my ignorance of the term salary. To me, salary is what you get paid for the amount of work you do. You do more work, you get paid more. I've never understood the term to mean "fixed amount regardless of hours", but obviously I was wrong.
To the question asker: No way! If they get more from you (work) then you deserve more from them (money). Absurd to work any other way.
"Actually, he did say that all are salaried. Since he stated that, presumably he meant all are on monthly/yearly salaries and that his boss is, in fact, asking him to do more work for the same money."
Ah well if that's the case then it's a nonsense. As many, many, many other people have said in this discussion, he shouldn't be doing extra unpaid work unless he stands to benefit directly from the company's success. (And I don't mean that he gets to keep his job, I mean that he gets a cut of the profit, whether that's shares or a bonus, etc.)
By the way thanks to the person who modded my comment as funny. Not what I was going for lol :-)
Six months ago I began working solo on a commercial programming project. I've been working 16-18 hours each day, most days, because that's what I feel is required to bring the project to market in a reasonable time. It would be great if I had a team of people and we could all work 8-hour-days, but I don't, so long hours are required.
It sounds like your boss is in a similar situation. He wants to market a product of X size, requiring Y amount of work, in Z time. What he's asking you is: Are you, and the rest of the staff, the right people for this project? Are you willing to do Y amount of work in Z time?
The tone of your question to slashdot is, I think: How do I tell my boss that this is an unreasonable request, while still keeping my job? In other words: How do I dictate the terms of my employment?
Really the question should be to yourself, and it should be exactly the same question that your boss is asking you: Are you the right person for this job?
It's perfectly acceptable for you to decide that you aren't the right person. Maybe all of the other staff are the wrong people too. But the job is what it is. I don't bat an eyelid to working a 12-hour day, but maybe that isn't right for you, and that's fine.
Good luck, anyway. I hope the situation can be resolved in a way that works for everyone.
(Note: my answer would be very different if your boss was asking you to do more work for the same money, but as you didn't say anything about that I assume that isn't the case.)
"Apple is trademark happy -- snapping up all i*, and *pod names, including established names like podcast "
Isn't podcast derived from iPod? A downloadable broadcast that people listen to on their iPod. That would give Apple a good claim to the term.
I'm no Apple fan, but to be fair, when I hear "app store", I think of Apple. When I hear of another company's service being referred to as an "app store", I think of Apple. Apple has made the term "app store" what it is. I don't think Microsoft would be too pleased about Apple beinging out their new Windows interface for iDevices.
A nice fat juicy bug steak. Joy.
Regardless of the ethics, controversy, or popularity of whatever is being regulated, regulation should, once set, remain largely unchanged. If the government sets out rules for business to operate, then a business following those rules -- not "working around" them -- should be able to continue trading. If the government then adjusts the regulatory rules, specifically to shut down certain businesses, those business should be able to claim compensation, which of course would come from our taxes. We may or may not like what a particular company is doing, but if we (via government) tell them it's okay to go ahead and start-up, we shouldn't set about shutting them down shortly after.
What I'm trying to say is, governments shouldn't mess people around by giving them a set of rules and then changing the rules.
"using psychiatrists and sociologists"
They must be 100% accurate, 100% of the time, or their advice is worthless.
"agencies require all their employees to report any contacts with members of the news media"
Maybe, just maybe, the person that leaks something will come up with a way around this rule. Like not reporting the contact.
When I read the headline I thought huh, he's going to pose for Playboy and marry John Romero?
Will we punish dolphins for rape?
http://scienceray.com/biology/marine-biology/not-so-cute-dolphin-gang-rape/
public static void patentIdea(Idea i) {
// if (!i.ours) return;
i.ours=true;
if (i.hasMoneyMakingPotential)
i.patent();
else
i.patentAnyway();
}
(What's really sad is that I pasted the code in to Eclipse to check for syntax errors.)
I really, really, really, from the bottom of my heart, with a stomach-churning sickness and bile rising in my throat, hate this trend of trivial and obvious technology patents. They all boil down to the same thing: "We saw someone else doing this, and we think it's a good idea, so we want to be the only people that are allowed to do it from now on."
The source signed a non-disclosure agreement, on the basis that he was trustworthy, and then disclosed the document anyway. What an unsavoury character.
"The way he said it"
We don't know _how_ he said it. All we how is how the reporter paraphrased it. And it isn't even a paraphrased quote as such, it's merely a summary of something that was allegedly said.
What is the point of writing about 2012 being "absurd"? It was a special effects action movie intended to entertain people in a cinema for 2 hours. Mission accomplished, for me and millions of other people. The same team that made 2012 also made films about alien invasions and giant lizards, so they aren't exactly aiming for hard realism and non-absurdity.
Someone at NASA isn't making an interesting or valid criticism, they are demonstrating their own lack of humour.
Maybe the birds had become angry at some nearby pigs and began launching themselves from catapults.
"MS's Hotmail specifically says they're not responsible for loss of data"
Whereas the likely truth is that they _are_ responsible for loss of data, but they don't _accept_ responsibility.
Nobody's saying that the teachers can't write their own songs for the kids to sing for free. But if they (the teachers / daycare centres) want to use someone else's songs as part of their profession then they're being told to pay. Just like they pay for books, videos, class trips, etc.
I totally get the "oh my god this is awful telling those poor little kiddies that they must pay to sing" reaction. But that isn't what's happening. What's happening is that professional people (teachers) and for-profit businesses (daycare centres) are being told that they can't use someone else's professional work for free.
Let me play devil's advocate:
Daycare centres are busineses. Carers are professionals earning a living from their work. If they want to use a musician's song as part of their work then why shouldn't they have to pay? Why should this beneficial material be provided freely to them?
That is some people's view. I don't agree.
People should be able to choose the vehicle they want to keep their family safe.
While it is unavoidable that the larger, more powerful SUVs will be too expensive for some people, what I condemn is any move by the _state_ to price people out of the SUV market based on relatively trivial matters such as CO2 emissions.
Rich people will still be able to buy, tax and insure their SUVs, while poorer people will be more likely to be limited to smaller, weaker cars that will come off worse in a crash.
The safety issue really concerns me. I don't want people being forced by legislation to buy smaller, weaker cars, for city driving, because most people can only afford one car so they'll also be taking those same small, weak cars out on fast roads.
I'm a news photographer and I often attend accident scenes. As a rule, whenever there is an SUV involved, the occupants of the SUV survive and the occupants of the car _all_ die.
Renault Megane vs Range Rover. Both people in the Megane killed. Minor injuries in the Range Rover.
http://www.meejahor.com/wp-content/uploads/FatalcollisiononB9006CantraywoodtoCroyro_A156/FatalcollisionB9006CantraywoodtoCroyroad2.jpg
Vauxhall Corsa vs Mitsubishi Shogun. Both people in the Corsa killed. Injuries in the Shogun.
http://www.meejahor.com/wp-content/uploads/Newspaperphotosfromthelastfewmonths_CD67/A9Dalwhinniefatalcollision5of8.jpg
Vauxhall Astra vs Mitsubishi Shogun. All three people in the Astra killed. Minor injuries in the Shogun.
http://www.meejahor.com/wp-content/uploads/818q3025.jpg
Won't the DDoSers be flooding the IP?
I'm going to go against the general concensus and say that I wasn't at all impressed. The idea itself is cool, and has a huge amount of potential, but the execution was poor. The choice of lens is too wide (don't use wide angle when you're going to be panning / tilting), the camera has part of the plane in shot (again due to the lens being too wide), and apparently there was nothing done to avoid rain drops on the lens (would have been easier to avoid with a less-wide lens). Honestly, nearly everything that _could_ be done wrong, _was_ done wrong, and it was all because they didn't think enough about lens choice. The only bit they did right was not crashing the plane.
Every random / abusive / tyrannical decision by Apple reminds me why I sold my iPhone and swore I would never buy another Apple product. Every time I lean closer to buying an iPad, Apple does something horrible and my credit card breathes a sigh of relief. Thank you Apple.
Love Java. Love Eclipse. Sounds like my IDE of choice is going to get a lot stronger.