"the company will not be held liable by the employee for blah, blah, etc..."
cannot be a defense for negligent behavior.
Contracts are about fair exchange of services, not making one party take all the risk and the other party to have none. While some contracts are not considered fair one party cannot completely assume the burden of all risks or responsibilities for both parties. Considering the violent reaction to this new drug a disclaimer saying, "we cannot be held responsible" will not hold water in court.
The shame will be that the company will not pay, for what I consider, criminial behavior.
I loved this comment, I don't know if it is true but it is clever parenting at the very least.
My husband is fond of telling our children about being paid by fellow pupils to eat their vegetables and the money he made from this, he spent on sweets which he sold to his friends for a profit.
this is something that must be considered before we start possibly causing unanticipated effects
This is the problem I have with these arguments. We are burning oil faster than ever before with glaciers melting at unheard of rates which can have huge consquences; yet we should sit and wait until we understand how some new idea will affect the planet?
It is like a fat person drinking a six-pack of beer, smoking two-pack of cigarettes with a dinner of pork-rinds waits for a report on "how bad vitamins are for you".
Also in the news today, the GNAA is suing the web site Slashdot. From their lawyer, "Yo man! Everytime we post some'tin on their page, it is always getting marked down yo... They cannot being don't that s**t to a n*****, it just ain't right!"
Taco, as a representative for Slashdot was quoted with a response... "WTF?!"
The media has greater access than a normal person so they must be a-political. If you dare criticize the government, it is political because that is the only type of problems that a government has. Noone in the government would put their self-interest before public needs!
The biggest thing Microsoft has done; lowered expectations of computers and software being considered reliable.
The result, managers focusing on supporting software, rather than find software that will not break in the first place. That is the biggest hinderance to adaption of Linux and other Open Source programs...
People have known since before Rockefeller cornered the oil market that being a "market leader" allowed you to set prices above marginal cost to a degree dependent on your market power, which has nothing whatsoever to do with economies of scale
Being a "market leader" is one aspect, which correlates with "Economies of Scale". What Rockefeller did was vertical integration which reduced the costs of the supply chain. That is has nothing to do with being the "Market Leader", but can have something to do with "Economies of Scale" (because one oil well would supply
A good example of "Market Leader" is Wal-Mart, they are the leading retailer in the world. Because of their huge size they can buy in such a large bulk that they get a special discount their competitors cannot.
In the seventies, there was a huge study in how to create a successful business. One of those areas they found as being important was "Market Leader". The reason, it was easier for the "Market Leader" to achieve "Economies of Scale"( ie. It is cheaper to produce 10,000 units instead of 5,000 units).
Being a market leader was not the only variable in this study, just one of several. However, it appears "a little knowledge is dangerous" applies here. I doubt "Economies of Scale" (and thereforce "Market Leader") is as important to IT compared with manufacturing cars. They took one potential variable and applied it to Google without looking at the big picture of how it all works.
My wife is part of the Mormon church, they tell her that should give 10% of income. However, there are a number of people who don't pay. The area I live in has numerous med students( for example) and some have a wife and kids while still in school! Fat chance they are giving 10% of their meager income. On the other hand, the church does donate money to families (directly) that are truly in need of help so it is not always a one-way transaction.
The typical CEO that gives himself a dollar paycheck tends to often get other compensation either stock options or executive perks.
Warren Buffet has more money than he knows what to do with, hence while he takes $100,000 salary he does not attempt to dilute the investment of other stockholders by given himself stock options at their expense (unlike many, many other C*O's)!
I love thier last comment about the workers, "I think ECS' employees take great pride in their hard work, even though they are getting paid very little in comparison to bloated unionized factories". There is not a bit of biase there I tell ya!
It maybe the old fashion concept of paying for it and having it, but how often are you buying it is the question. The game itself is irrelevant, it is the enjoyment of the game is what you are paying for. If I were spending $50 month to buy a game where I play once or twice and own the disk,, is that really better than paying $16/month for a game that I really don't own?
I admit, I have bought a lot of games (100~), and threw most of them out. I had not even looked at some of these games in years. I would probalbly saved some monye if I had played MMO instead, though I am sure I would had less time to do other things in my life...
One thing that this map conveys, is that Microsoft, as a company, has its products and markets all over the place, it is just not focused on doing one thing well. It is competing against dozens of other companies that are working on only the piece of the business that they want and are ultimately making their products better than Microsoft.
If you throw in some other stuff, like the entertainment division with the XBOX-360, you can add another 2 big competitors in Nintendo and Sony.
Also notice that some of Microsoft's competitors may compete against each other, but their focus is entirely on Microsoft, they cannot get a break anywhere. Though this really their own fault for not focusing only a few markets.
The longer uptime is due to time that Windows spends booting up and shutting down. Where as Linux will shutdown quickly and cleanly Windows is still chugging along with prompts say "Are you sure you want to close this program?". This is where it gets its longer up time from.
The law is also very flexible about allowing a company to determine what "shareholder interest" is. A large number of shareholders are interested in stock price and dividends but there are people who determine their investments beyond stock earning power.
I have worked the Dod, I am currently working with Child Support Enforcement, they take following the laws and securing peoples data very seriously. That this data is important does not come about because of the law, it comes with from the way people do business and how people higher up the chain of command set their expectations.
If the people higher-up don't even say, "securing people's data is important," you can bet people will be taking all sorts of stuff home with them and until something bad happens nothing will be done. Were I work, you take home that data, and you are found out, they will fire you then and there, they don't care you are doing work at home, they knew what the policy was and they disobeyed it.
Compared to this,
The laptop should have had an encrypted hard drive. If the user does not know how to secure data do you really believe that he should being taking it home?
The consultant should not have taken the data home. But he did anyways because he knew that if there are no problems he would not have been punished.
But if the consultant shouldn't have taken the data home, why was he given a laptop? Was he given a laptop to act as a way transfer sensitive files between work and home? I doubt it. People often use a laptop to check email for example. Besides the policy was not being taking sort of data home, not be given an exception if you have a laptop.
The VA has no special claim on incompetence. As the government is so fond of saying, ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it.
I here lots of excuses for mistakes, but when you are making mistakes especially when you are affecting thousands of other people, I don't see "other people are incompetent too" as a valid reason to avoid serious punishment.
Slashdot Mirror
Must be a manager because he added all those words that don't mean anything then...
Signing a contract that says,
"the company will not be held liable by the employee for blah, blah, etc..."
cannot be a defense for negligent behavior.
Contracts are about fair exchange of services, not making one party take all the risk and the other party to have none. While some contracts are not considered fair one party cannot completely assume the burden of all risks or responsibilities for both parties. Considering the violent reaction to this new drug a disclaimer saying, "we cannot be held responsible" will not hold water in court.
The shame will be that the company will not pay, for what I consider, criminial behavior.
I loved this comment, I don't know if it is true but it is clever parenting at the very least.
My husband is fond of telling our children about being paid by fellow pupils to eat their vegetables and the money he made from this, he spent on sweets which he sold to his friends for a profit.
Jasmine, Peterborough
this is something that must be considered before we start possibly causing unanticipated effects
This is the problem I have with these arguments. We are burning oil faster than ever before with glaciers melting at unheard of rates which can have huge consquences; yet we should sit and wait until we understand how some new idea will affect the planet?
It is like a fat person drinking a six-pack of beer, smoking two-pack of cigarettes with a dinner of pork-rinds waits for a report on "how bad vitamins are for you".
Yeah, I downloaded all the useful material to a floppy disk. Email me if you need a copy...
Because car companies make extra money selling engine parts?
No gas engine, a lot of parts are no longer needed.
Also in the news today, the GNAA is suing the web site Slashdot. From their lawyer, "Yo man! Everytime we post some'tin on their page, it is always getting marked down yo... They cannot being don't that s**t to a n*****, it just ain't right!"
Taco, as a representative for Slashdot was quoted with a response... "WTF?!"
Because they would produce a surplus of energy and they would lose their campaign funds from utility companies...
Well if your name is Kosmo Kramer, you just move your Kitchen into the bathroom instead. Much cheaper that way... :)
The media has greater access than a normal person so they must be a-political. If you dare criticize the government, it is political because that is the only type of problems that a government has. Noone in the government would put their self-interest before public needs!
Take that Mr. Brown!
The biggest thing Microsoft has done; lowered expectations of computers and software being considered reliable.
The result, managers focusing on supporting software, rather than find software that will not break in the first place. That is the biggest hinderance to adaption of Linux and other Open Source programs...
there was a huge study care to provide a reference?
Ask and thou shall recieve Flamebait! :) I did not list it earlier becuase I forgot what it was specifically called (It is PIMS BTW).
Wiki link here
People have known since before Rockefeller cornered the oil market that being a "market leader" allowed you to set prices above marginal cost to a degree dependent on your market power, which has nothing whatsoever to do with economies of scale
Being a "market leader" is one aspect, which correlates with "Economies of Scale". What Rockefeller did was vertical integration which reduced the costs of the supply chain. That is has nothing to do with being the "Market Leader", but can have something to do with "Economies of Scale" (because one oil well would supply
A good example of "Market Leader" is Wal-Mart, they are the leading retailer in the world. Because of their huge size they can buy in such a large bulk that they get a special discount their competitors cannot.
In the seventies, there was a huge study in how to create a successful business. One of those areas they found as being important was "Market Leader". The reason, it was easier for the "Market Leader" to achieve "Economies of Scale"( ie. It is cheaper to produce 10,000 units instead of 5,000 units).
Being a market leader was not the only variable in this study, just one of several. However, it appears "a little knowledge is dangerous" applies here. I doubt "Economies of Scale" (and thereforce "Market Leader") is as important to IT compared with manufacturing cars. They took one potential variable and applied it to Google without looking at the big picture of how it all works.
My wife is part of the Mormon church, they tell her that should give 10% of income. However, there are a number of people who don't pay. The area I live in has numerous med students( for example) and some have a wife and kids while still in school! Fat chance they are giving 10% of their meager income. On the other hand, the church does donate money to families (directly) that are truly in need of help so it is not always a one-way transaction.
Just great, the people that we refer to as sharks will start to grow back their own teeth, they will never stop being a menace to society now!
Darn you Canadians!
The typical CEO that gives himself a dollar paycheck tends to often get other compensation either stock options or executive perks.
Warren Buffet has more money than he knows what to do with, hence while he takes $100,000 salary he does not attempt to dilute the investment of other stockholders by given himself stock options at their expense (unlike many, many other C*O's)!
I love thier last comment about the workers, "I think ECS' employees take great pride in their hard work, even though they are getting paid very little in comparison to bloated unionized factories". There is not a bit of biase there I tell ya!
It maybe the old fashion concept of paying for it and having it, but how often are you buying it is the question. The game itself is irrelevant, it is the enjoyment of the game is what you are paying for. If I were spending $50 month to buy a game where I play once or twice and own the disk,, is that really better than paying $16/month for a game that I really don't own?
I admit, I have bought a lot of games (100~), and threw most of them out. I had not even looked at some of these games in years. I would probalbly saved some monye if I had played MMO instead, though I am sure I would had less time to do other things in my life...
One thing that this map conveys, is that Microsoft, as a company, has its products and markets all over the place, it is just not focused on doing one thing well. It is competing against dozens of other companies that are working on only the piece of the business that they want and are ultimately making their products better than Microsoft.
If you throw in some other stuff, like the entertainment division with the XBOX-360, you can add another 2 big competitors in Nintendo and Sony.
Also notice that some of Microsoft's competitors may compete against each other, but their focus is entirely on Microsoft, they cannot get a break anywhere. Though this really their own fault for not focusing only a few markets.
Googles market cap is $120 Billion so I think that IBM can hold a candle to them.
"My name is CmdrTaco... I am a dupe poster addict..."
Slashdot: "Hi Taco!"
The longer uptime is due to time that Windows spends booting up and shutting down. Where as Linux will shutdown quickly and cleanly Windows is still chugging along with prompts say "Are you sure you want to close this program?". This is where it gets its longer up time from.
The law is also very flexible about allowing a company to determine what "shareholder interest" is. A large number of shareholders are interested in stock price and dividends but there are people who determine their investments beyond stock earning power.
I have worked the Dod, I am currently working with Child Support Enforcement, they take following the laws and securing peoples data very seriously. That this data is important does not come about because of the law, it comes with from the way people do business and how people higher up the chain of command set their expectations.
If the people higher-up don't even say, "securing people's data is important," you can bet people will be taking all sorts of stuff home with them and until something bad happens nothing will be done. Were I work, you take home that data, and you are found out, they will fire you then and there, they don't care you are doing work at home, they knew what the policy was and they disobeyed it.
Compared to this,
I here lots of excuses for mistakes, but when you are making mistakes especially when you are affecting thousands of other people, I don't see "other people are incompetent too" as a valid reason to avoid serious punishment.