While you are a student in the US, I would advise doing some research on the jury system. I am not sure where you are from but the jury system works. It is not perfect. I don't know of any man-made system that is perfect but it is far better than any other system in place today. Before you make uninformed judgements about the jury system, do a little research to see if you're on on firm standing.
hahaha....some weasel little moderator marked my comment as redundant! I had the second post yet I'm redundant! Leave it to weasel bastard moderators lacking any semblance of a life to mark the second post as redundant! Only in slashdot! This place has gone to the shitter !
The comment was actually directed towards the inane moderation policy in use. I coudn't care less what opinions are expressed, but I do care that certain people are so priveleged as to tell me what is informative, funny, off topic, redundant, insightful, etc.
Right-to-work laws are pretty widespread in the US.
annecdotal
I always thought non-competion clauses were a barbaric, anti-labour practice
opinion
Using the speed of technological change as an argument against them is novel, and I'm not sure how happy I am with that. It would be far better to strike down non-competion clauses completely.
opinion
The business community will, of course, complain that this prevents them from securing their intellectual property and acts to undermine business
opinion
However, since the computer industry is more concentrated in Calfornia than anywhere else, and California hasn't allowed such contracts for years
annecdotal
Workers should own their own skills and should be free to seek employment wherever they choose. To me, this ought to be a basic human right.
opinion
The comment should have been marked interesting, if anything. Not trying to knock the comment, just the silly moderation process.
yeah, I guess you're right. That's probably why a lot of these non-competes get signed. After the first paragraph and the headache that comes with that, you're happy to sign the thing so you can go on with your life.
(accepts peace pipe and apologizes about letting ball roll in shit.)
Hey Roblimo, did you mean to imply that you don't wish Bill G a happy birthday? He did, after all, "innovate" all these wonderful technologies that you use today:>)
I don't even know what argument you are trying to make. If your legal advice to your "London Law Firm" is as convoluted as the commentary you provide here, I would then like to make a correction to my previous comment:
You are not a competent lawyer, obviously.
The preceeding comment is probably redundant, in that no lawyers are competent, but I think you get the picture.
The ball, after having been rolled in shit, is back in your court.
You do sound naive. Contracts that are illegal, for instance, have no legal standing, regardless of whether it was signed by bothe parties. Businesses try to exert their power too often and I, for one, am glad there are judges out there to smack them down when they go overboard.
I guess you didn't read the article. The part about internet time wasn't the sole factor. The judge touched on some of the issues you've mentioned, specifically that the defendant in the case was not an officer or high level executive and was not in possession of "trade secrets".
ethics smethics. If your employer asks you to do anything that abridges your rights, in this case to make a living, then the courts are right in ruling them unenforceable.
When you are sitting on $20 billion in cash, and absolutely no debt... you tend to have some staying power:)
Do you know how many stock options Microsoft has outstanding? Once their stock starts taking a hit and the investors get nervous, that $20 billion will start evaporating.
this may be moot after the dust settles in the anti-trust trust. A ruling of fact is expected tomorrow.
These PC companies are feeling friskly because the spotlight has been put on Microsoft's business practices. If Microsoft gets a free ride from the judge, the laizze-faire (sp ?) attitude currently expressed by Microsoft will change.
I sincerely hope this is the beginning of the end of Microsoft's stranglehold on computing.
Settting up books so that they lend themselves to sequels is what makes sci-fi the cheesy genre that it is. I don't mind it when it absolutely makes sense but most of the time it's a publishing ploy to milk the readers. Until Sci-Fi artists are content to submit their works to stand on their own, the genre will never truly get the respect that it deserves.
Hah! You almost made me do a spit take while reading your comment! Snookums...I love that! My girlfriend is laughing her ass off at hoplophobic as I type. She wants me to let you know that she wasn't aware that rednecks could use words with more letters than they have teeth!
I hope I haven't offended you by calling you redneck and hillbillie. You seem intent upon distancing yourself from these characterizations. I do appreciate the fact that you are from New England, but being a redneck is a state of mind. That state of mind may exist in greater numbers in the deep south, but rednecks are everywhere. Kinda like roaches.
I really don't feel like pursuing this thread much further, but I will indulge you a bit. Here's what I hear from you:
1) Tons of gun laws...no need for any more 2) Gun ownership promotes civility. Guns for everyone ! (law abiding, that is)
Let me explore your first argument. I will concede that there are more guns laws on the books than there were 30 years ago. But when you examine the "verifiable, objective facts", your argument is exposed as disengenous at best, dishonest and cynical at worst.
Federal gun legislation was passed several years ago that purported to ban the sale and possesion of assault weapons. The problem with the legislation was that rather than define the guns based on how they worked, the legislation was based on how the guns looked!
This was all done under the stewardship of the NRA and its lackeys on Capitol Hill. You see, they realized they could curry public favor by pointing to gun legislation that they passed and they also realized that they would rack up right-winger brownie points with their base by passing innocous legislation!
Gun manufacturers modified their gun designs so that their new guns would not look like the guns defined in legislation. This allowed them to continue to sell assault guns unbidened.
This same tactic was applied when state and local govt's attempted to outlaw the sale and possesion of "saturday night special" type guns that criminals were fond of using. Once again, the laws were based on how the guns looked. Some cities found that after the guns had been redesigned, 99% of the guns were deemed to look sufficiently different as to be sellable under the law.
You see my little misanthropic friend [sorry, I couldn't come up with anything cuter than snookems:>( ], your argument has a few holes in it. You can't judge the merit of a laws by numbers alone. If you want to be honest, what you need to do is actually examine what the law is really doing. I suggest that when you have finished reading your NRA pamphlets that you do the same. You might learn something.
Ok. Let's examine your second argument. You use the NRA staple argument that widespread gun ownership has the ancillary effect of lowering crime rates. The implication being that criminals are reluctant to operate in areas where they are uncertain whether their intended victims will be packing heat. The state of Texas is always used as an example.
This type of argument is what is known as sophistry. Upon face value it appears that your logic may actually make sense. However, the simplistic and deceptive nature of your argument is always disproven after careful analysis. To insinuate that the crime rate can ever be attributed to one single factor is sheer lunacy. But this is what you NRAphytes have been trained to do. If we were to suspend reality for a second and assume that you actually believed your own argument, we should then be able to extrapolate your argument to further prove its conclusiveness. Unfortunately, when we look around the world, we find very few cases to support your argument. Europe and Asia have very low rates of gun ownership, and yet they have remarkably low rates of violence and crime. Is there some phenomenom that makes America special? If so, I would appreciate it if you could explain it to me.
I could go on for hours but I'm actually bored with you now so I'm going to call it quits. I do want to thank you for the laugh though, as does my girl!
Correction my maladjusted misanthrope. You are the moron. You can try to obfuscate the issue any way you want. Rehashing the old argument that there are more laws on the books, therefore it's harder to get a gun is the usual garbage spewed by you right wing militia types.
If NY state passes 70,000 laws prohibiting or rendering more difficult the purchasing of guns, and NJ has no laws on the books, how effective do you think the NY law is?
There isn't a clear concerted national effort to make the purchase and dissemination of guns more difficult. Gun shows are completely unregulated. Any redneck loser (you might fit that category) can set up a trailer home and declare it to be a gunshow. This needs to be stopped.
When declaring that you are presenting "verifiable,objective facts", make sure that you are not under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. You only wind up making yourself look like the stupid hillbillie that you probably are.
And oh yeah, pussies like you are usually too afraid to take ownership of your comments. Now go bang your sister bitch.
After trying to read some of this guy's stuff, I've learned to recite the company line: "Knuth be da man, dude" When pressed on what I actually like about his books, I change the conversation quickly in the hope that no one finds out I can't get out of chapter 1. Guess I shouldn't have read the newspaper in math class way back when.
While Linux is considered a Unix clone, keep in mind two big difference.
1) Linux has always been open. The Unix vendors, on the other hand, released commercial, propietary, closed OS's. 2) Linux has a clearly defined "lead" developer. Unix vendors were led by nameless businessmen.
Regardless of whether TurboLinux' changes are the greatest thing since sliced bread, if Linus doesn't think they deserve inclusion into the next kernel release, it will go off on its own and sort of do a slow death-dance. Linus, along with his horde or developers, has gained the respect of developers and business folks and are accepted as the true stewards of the Linux system. There is no one else around who can claim equal credibility and usurp momentum from Linus and gang.
The Unix vendors ran into trouble when they started to incorporate propietary code into their versions and closed development. Linux will never encounter this problem. Anything based off the linux kernel base can be re-incoportated into the kernel.
Slashdot Mirror
While you are a student in the US, I would advise doing some research on the jury system. I am not sure where you are from but the jury system works. It is not perfect. I don't know of any man-made system that is perfect but it is far better than any other system in place today. Before you make uninformed judgements about the jury system, do a little research to see if you're on on firm standing.
hahaha....some weasel little moderator marked my comment as redundant! I had the second post yet I'm redundant! Leave it to weasel bastard moderators lacking any semblance of a life to mark the second post as redundant! Only in slashdot! This place has gone to the shitter !
The comment was actually directed towards the inane moderation policy in use. I coudn't care less what opinions are expressed, but I do care that certain people are so priveleged as to tell me what is informative, funny, off topic, redundant, insightful, etc.
Uh, that was the whole point of the post. Your observation of that fact was redundant then.
I'm sorry but I'm not sure what your comment means. Can you elaborate?
Right-to-work laws are pretty widespread in the US.
annecdotal
I always thought non-competion clauses were a barbaric, anti-labour practice
opinion
Using the speed of technological change as an argument against them is novel, and I'm not sure how happy I am with that. It would be far better to strike down non-competion clauses completely.
opinion
The business community will, of course, complain that this prevents them from securing their intellectual property and acts to undermine business
opinion
However, since the computer industry is more concentrated in Calfornia than anywhere else, and California hasn't allowed such contracts for years
annecdotal
Workers should own their own skills and should be free to seek employment wherever they choose. To me, this ought to be a basic human right.
opinion
The comment should have been marked interesting, if anything. Not trying to knock the comment, just the silly moderation process.
yeah, I guess you're right. That's probably why a lot of these non-competes get signed. After the first paragraph and the headache that comes with that, you're happy to sign the thing so you can go on with your life.
(accepts peace pipe and apologizes about letting ball roll in shit.)
horrible teen sex
:>)
Isn't that statement oxymoronic? I guess it depends on whether you're a teen male or a teen female
Hey Roblimo, did you mean to imply that you don't wish Bill G a happy birthday? He did, after all, "innovate" all these wonderful technologies that you use today :>)
I don't even know what argument you are trying to make. If your legal advice to your "London Law Firm" is as convoluted as the commentary you provide here, I would then like to make a correction to my previous comment:
You are not a competent lawyer, obviously.
The preceeding comment is probably redundant, in that no lawyers are competent, but I think you get the picture.
The ball, after having been rolled in shit, is back in your court.
it is legally binding up to the point that any contract can be overturned by a judge
What kind of idiotic comment is that? You are not a lawyer, obviously. You're not even an actor portraying a lawyer on tv. Go back to playing Quake.
You do sound naive. Contracts that are illegal, for instance, have no legal standing, regardless of whether it was signed by bothe parties. Businesses try to exert their power too often and I, for one, am glad there are judges out there to smack them down when they go overboard.
I didn't know prostitutes had to sign non-competes. I can imagine a pimp trying to enforce a non-compete:
Pimp: "Bitch...I kill you if you go work for Louis. Didja read my no-compete, ho?"
Prostitute: "I'm sorry Big Daddy, but your no-compete is illegal in NY state"
Pimp: "Goddamnit...the man always be trying to keep me down"
I guess you didn't read the article. The part about internet time wasn't the sole factor. The judge touched on some of the issues you've mentioned, specifically that the defendant in the case was not an officer or high level executive and was not in possession of "trade secrets".
ethics smethics. If your employer asks you to do anything that abridges your rights, in this case to make a living, then the courts are right in ruling them unenforceable.
Chalk one up to the lil guy.
This Judge is the man !
When you are sitting on $20 billion in cash, and absolutely no debt... you tend to have some staying power :)
Do you know how many stock options Microsoft has outstanding? Once their stock starts taking a hit and the investors get nervous, that $20 billion will start evaporating.
this may be moot after the dust settles in the anti-trust trust. A ruling of fact is expected tomorrow.
These PC companies are feeling friskly because the spotlight has been put on Microsoft's business practices. If Microsoft gets a free ride from the judge, the laizze-faire (sp ?) attitude currently expressed by Microsoft will change.
I sincerely hope this is the beginning of the end of Microsoft's stranglehold on computing.
Settting up books so that they lend themselves to sequels is what makes sci-fi the cheesy genre that it is. I don't mind it when it absolutely makes sense but most of the time it's a publishing ploy to milk the readers. Until Sci-Fi artists are content to submit their works to stand on their own, the genre will never truly get the respect that it deserves.
Hah! You almost made me do a spit take while reading your comment! Snookums...I love that! My girlfriend is laughing her ass off at hoplophobic as I type. She wants me to let you know that she wasn't aware that rednecks could use words with more letters than they have teeth!
:>( ], your argument has a few holes in it. You can't judge the merit of a laws by numbers alone. If you want to be honest, what you need to do is actually examine what the law is really doing. I suggest that when you have finished reading your NRA pamphlets that you do the same. You might learn something.
I hope I haven't offended you by calling you redneck and hillbillie. You seem intent upon distancing yourself from these characterizations. I do appreciate the fact that you are from New England, but being a redneck is a state of mind. That state of mind may exist in greater numbers in the deep south, but rednecks are everywhere. Kinda like roaches.
I really don't feel like pursuing this thread much further, but I will indulge you a bit. Here's what I hear from you:
1) Tons of gun laws...no need for any more
2) Gun ownership promotes civility. Guns for everyone ! (law abiding, that is)
Let me explore your first argument. I will concede that there are more guns laws on the books than there were 30 years ago. But when you examine the "verifiable, objective facts", your argument is exposed as disengenous at best, dishonest and cynical at worst.
Federal gun legislation was passed several years ago that purported to ban the sale and possesion of assault weapons. The problem with the legislation was that rather than define the guns based on how they worked, the legislation was based on how the guns looked!
This was all done under the stewardship of the NRA and its lackeys on Capitol Hill. You see, they realized they could curry public favor by pointing to gun legislation that they passed and they also realized that they would rack up right-winger brownie points with their base by passing innocous legislation!
Gun manufacturers modified their gun designs so that their new guns would not look like the guns defined in legislation. This allowed them to continue to sell assault guns unbidened.
This same tactic was applied when state and local govt's attempted to outlaw the sale and possesion of "saturday night special" type guns that criminals were fond of using. Once again, the laws were based on how the guns looked. Some cities found that after the guns had been redesigned, 99% of the guns were deemed to look sufficiently different as to be sellable under the law.
You see my little misanthropic friend [sorry, I couldn't come up with anything cuter than snookems
Ok. Let's examine your second argument. You use the NRA staple argument that widespread gun ownership has the ancillary effect of lowering crime rates. The implication being that criminals are reluctant to operate in areas where they are uncertain whether their intended victims will be packing heat. The state of Texas is always used as an example.
This type of argument is what is known as sophistry. Upon face value it appears that your logic may actually make sense. However, the simplistic and deceptive nature of your argument is always disproven after careful analysis. To insinuate that the crime rate can ever be attributed to one single factor is sheer lunacy. But this is what you NRAphytes have been trained to do. If we were to suspend reality for a second and assume that you actually believed your own argument, we should then be able to extrapolate your argument to further prove its conclusiveness. Unfortunately, when we look around the world, we find very few cases to support your argument. Europe and Asia have very low rates of gun ownership, and yet they have remarkably low rates of violence and crime. Is there some phenomenom that makes America special? If so, I would appreciate it if you could explain it to me.
I could go on for hours but I'm actually bored with you now so I'm going to call it quits. I do want to thank you for the laugh though, as does my girl!
Have fun cleaning your guns tonight!
Correction my maladjusted misanthrope. You are the moron. You can try to obfuscate the issue any way you want. Rehashing the old argument that there are more laws on the books, therefore it's harder to get a gun is the usual garbage spewed by you right wing militia types.
If NY state passes 70,000 laws prohibiting or rendering more difficult the purchasing of guns, and NJ has no laws on the books, how effective do you think the NY law is?
There isn't a clear concerted national effort to make the purchase and dissemination of guns more difficult. Gun shows are completely unregulated. Any redneck loser (you might fit that category) can set up a trailer home and declare it to be a gunshow. This needs to be stopped.
When declaring that you are presenting "verifiable,objective facts", make sure that you are not under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. You only wind up making yourself look like the stupid hillbillie that you probably are.
And oh yeah, pussies like you are usually too afraid to take ownership of your comments. Now go bang your sister bitch.
After trying to read some of this guy's stuff, I've learned to recite the company line: "Knuth be da man, dude" When pressed on what I actually like about his books, I change the conversation quickly in the hope that no one finds out I can't get out of chapter 1. Guess I shouldn't have read the newspaper in math class way back when.
Will someone moderate this man up? Finally, a rational person, with credibility who knows that this isn't an issue.
I can't stand it when ignorant people cry wolf for no reason. Hemos & Roblimo should be ashamed for promulgating this kind of garbage.
You are correct sir ! === lame Ed McMahon impersonation.
While Linux is considered a Unix clone, keep in mind two big difference.
1) Linux has always been open. The Unix vendors, on the other hand, released commercial, propietary, closed OS's.
2) Linux has a clearly defined "lead" developer. Unix vendors were led by nameless businessmen.
Regardless of whether TurboLinux' changes are the greatest thing since sliced bread, if Linus doesn't think they deserve inclusion into the next kernel release, it will go off on its own and sort of do a slow death-dance. Linus, along with his horde or developers, has gained the respect of developers and business folks and are accepted as the true stewards of the Linux system. There is no one else around who can claim equal credibility and usurp momentum from Linus and gang.
The Unix vendors ran into trouble when they started to incorporate propietary code into their versions and closed development. Linux will never encounter this problem. Anything based off the linux kernel base can be re-incoportated into the kernel.
Linux is in no trouble from code forking at all.