It's generally standard practice to give 2 weeks, but it's not required by law, I think most people just give two weeks because they think they have to, or they just don't want to leave a bad impression.
In Ontario, where I live, the law is that your employer must give you two weeks notice, or two weeks pay in lieu of notice when firing you without cause. Case law says they have to give you more than 2 weeks if you have been working for some certain amount of time. If there is cause for dismissal, they don't have to give you notice. On the other hand, when you leave your employer, you don't have to give them any notice. They also in return, don't have to give you a good reference. I'm not sure how contracts and all that other stuff fits in, but unless they have it in writing that you can't leave without X amount of notice, then you can leave whenever you please.
Which is why I stated that selling it for the $100 loss now is probably the best they can do. Sure they may still sell it later for more, but that's not likely, and if they sell it later, for less, then they are losing even more money. And if they sell it for $600 3 months from now, then they wasted money with warehousing, depreciation (some units may die just sitting on the shelf, even if not, they have to insure the stock in case something happens) and all the other costs associated with having a product sitting on the shelf. So, it's in Sony's best interest to sell those units now, before they do become worthless. Granted, they haven't lost the $700 yet, but if they don't move their ass, then the $700 will be lost. If nobody buys any more PS3s then sony is screwed. If everybody buys the remaining units and they only lose $100 on each, then Sony is not so screwed.
Lets just say it costs them $700 to make the system, and it costs $600 for the person to buy it. This means if someone buys it, they lose $100. If nobody buys it they lose $700. If somebody buys it after a price drop at $500, then they have lost $100. Unless they find some way to sell the PS3 at $700 or more at some later date, then selling it now for a loss of $100 is still the best they can do for the already manufactured units. As far as building new consoles, I'm not sure if it's more worth their money to stop production, or to continue producing them and selling at a loss, hoping to eventually make a profit.
What's pathetic is that people buy games that they later decide is worth only $5. If it's only worth $5, then is it even worth selling. Surely the gamer thinks that they will basically never want to play it again if it only costs them $5. I can't think of any games I own that I would give up for $5. At lot of people must be buying a lot of crappy games.
I don't know about the US, but in Canada, EB has pretty good prices on used games. I got Metroid Prime used for $12.99. Now the prices vary widely from game to game, but you can find lots of games for under $20, when most of the new stuff is still up around $60. Sometimes you'll see used games for $50, but I think most people ignore those. If there's that small of a difference, most people just buy the new games. I think most of the time when you see this, is when the game is new, but somehow they got a used copy.
If you're far enough north you may be able to pick up the CBC from Canada. I'm not sure if the episodes play the same week as they do in the UK, but I think they are pretty current.
I remember when a friend of mine locked himself out of his own files on an NTFS partition by messing around with the permissions. I was quite confused, as I thought that Administrator was comparable to root, which it apparently is not.
I'm not trivializing anything, I realize that he has a medical condition, so i've stated that incandescents should be able to be used under certain circumstances, which is why an all out ban would be stupid. But they also shouldn't make it so that it's up to the person, because we've tried that already, and nobody is switching to CFLs.
What is the cost of so much pollution that every dies of lung cancer at the age of 40? Not the way things are yet, but if we don't change our ways, the world could end up that way.
But the bill is to ban incandescents, not to force the use of CFLs. If you want to use LEDs instead than go ahead. If you can find me an incandescent bulb with comparable efficiency to an LED or CFL, then maybe you can complain about how it should be worded differently.
But that's why I said there should be certain provisions to use incandescents when CFLs cause problems. Just get a signed letter from your doctor explaining the situation, and there should be no problem. I'm not saying there should be no incandescents at all, but rather people should use them unless they have a really good reason.
As extreme as this legislation is, I hope it goes through, as long as there are provisions so that incandescents can still be used under certain circumstances. But as for everyday home lighting, the incandescent should be abolished.
Up until about 8 months ago, I was running a PII 266 I got back in 1998. It fulfilled all my needs. But eventually all the RAM chips started dieing, and it would have cost almost as much for new RAM as it did to buy a new computer, so I bought a new computer, which cost more than the RAM did, but I wanted another computer that would last me 8 years. It's actually cheaper to buy a new PC than to buy even just Vista, so I think a lot of people will take this option.
But what about all the other people who don't really follow the tech news. They still have a rootkit on their computer. I remember when the news came out, there was nothing on the news that 98% of the population would listen to. Only stuff on geek sites like slashdot. I bet most people are completely unaware it even happened.
But wouldn't it be cool if you only had 1 storage device, which could be used for all your devices, such as PDA, Phone, MP3/Media Player, Camera, Laptop, along with a few others i'm probably forgetting? I think this device could be really nice if many different types of devices started to support it.
Isn't this the way it's always worked? Up until now, they've either had to guess, reverse engineer, or look at specs to develop the drivers. This just seems like an awareness campaign. I'm sure the devs were always willing to develop drivers, especially when they could get their hands on the specs.
Yeah, I got an Nforce4 motherboard, and I had to disable all that ActiveArmour stuff because I kept getting errors in just about every file I downloaded. Tried firmware and software updates and everything, problem still exists. Maybe next time I will buy a Mac, because they just work.
Maybe you're right. Maybe you're not. It doesn't matter. MS word still has problems rendering the same document the same way on different computers. Whether it's the printer or some other reason, the problem still exists. I don't know if they've fixed this in office 12, but as for Office 2003 (how many times are they going to change the version numbering?) The problem still occurs, where documents don't render the same on different computers.
I think this is probably the best option we have, although I'm not sure how well it will work. Most people just buy a computer and use whatever software comes with it. And if you start to talk about why they shouldn't be using Vista, their ears turn off because you are being too technical (no matter how much you try and dumb it down).
Display it with the information chopped off? I'm not really sure how Adobe handles this. Just display the information as if the printer could actually print at.4" borders, and then display a warning message when they try to print that lets them know that something will be cut off. I don't want my document changed just because I sent it to someone else who had a different printer than I do.
But doesn't the computer tell the printer what the document should look like, and not the other way around? Adobe PDF documents look the same on every computer, when printed as well as on the screen, why should MS word be any different? If Adobe can ignore the printer and display the document the same everywhere, and print it out the same, why can't MS word do this?
Slashdot Mirror
It's generally standard practice to give 2 weeks, but it's not required by law, I think most people just give two weeks because they think they have to, or they just don't want to leave a bad impression.
In Ontario, where I live, the law is that your employer must give you two weeks notice, or two weeks pay in lieu of notice when firing you without cause. Case law says they have to give you more than 2 weeks if you have been working for some certain amount of time. If there is cause for dismissal, they don't have to give you notice. On the other hand, when you leave your employer, you don't have to give them any notice. They also in return, don't have to give you a good reference. I'm not sure how contracts and all that other stuff fits in, but unless they have it in writing that you can't leave without X amount of notice, then you can leave whenever you please.
Which is why I stated that selling it for the $100 loss now is probably the best they can do. Sure they may still sell it later for more, but that's not likely, and if they sell it later, for less, then they are losing even more money. And if they sell it for $600 3 months from now, then they wasted money with warehousing, depreciation (some units may die just sitting on the shelf, even if not, they have to insure the stock in case something happens) and all the other costs associated with having a product sitting on the shelf. So, it's in Sony's best interest to sell those units now, before they do become worthless. Granted, they haven't lost the $700 yet, but if they don't move their ass, then the $700 will be lost. If nobody buys any more PS3s then sony is screwed. If everybody buys the remaining units and they only lose $100 on each, then Sony is not so screwed.
Lets just say it costs them $700 to make the system, and it costs $600 for the person to buy it. This means if someone buys it, they lose $100. If nobody buys it they lose $700. If somebody buys it after a price drop at $500, then they have lost $100. Unless they find some way to sell the PS3 at $700 or more at some later date, then selling it now for a loss of $100 is still the best they can do for the already manufactured units. As far as building new consoles, I'm not sure if it's more worth their money to stop production, or to continue producing them and selling at a loss, hoping to eventually make a profit.
What's pathetic is that people buy games that they later decide is worth only $5. If it's only worth $5, then is it even worth selling. Surely the gamer thinks that they will basically never want to play it again if it only costs them $5. I can't think of any games I own that I would give up for $5. At lot of people must be buying a lot of crappy games.
I don't know about the US, but in Canada, EB has pretty good prices on used games. I got Metroid Prime used for $12.99. Now the prices vary widely from game to game, but you can find lots of games for under $20, when most of the new stuff is still up around $60. Sometimes you'll see used games for $50, but I think most people ignore those. If there's that small of a difference, most people just buy the new games. I think most of the time when you see this, is when the game is new, but somehow they got a used copy.
If you're far enough north you may be able to pick up the CBC from Canada. I'm not sure if the episodes play the same week as they do in the UK, but I think they are pretty current.
I remember when a friend of mine locked himself out of his own files on an NTFS partition by messing around with the permissions. I was quite confused, as I thought that Administrator was comparable to root, which it apparently is not.
I'm not trivializing anything, I realize that he has a medical condition, so i've stated that incandescents should be able to be used under certain circumstances, which is why an all out ban would be stupid. But they also shouldn't make it so that it's up to the person, because we've tried that already, and nobody is switching to CFLs.
Of course, you could just record the shows with your TV tuner, and play them on your Archos, and they wouldn't expire, but why would anyone want that?
What is the cost of so much pollution that every dies of lung cancer at the age of 40? Not the way things are yet, but if we don't change our ways, the world could end up that way.
But the bill is to ban incandescents, not to force the use of CFLs. If you want to use LEDs instead than go ahead. If you can find me an incandescent bulb with comparable efficiency to an LED or CFL, then maybe you can complain about how it should be worded differently.
Or you could just tell him which type of CFLs you find the best, so he doesn't have to do the same experimentation that you did.
But that's why I said there should be certain provisions to use incandescents when CFLs cause problems. Just get a signed letter from your doctor explaining the situation, and there should be no problem. I'm not saying there should be no incandescents at all, but rather people should use them unless they have a really good reason.
As extreme as this legislation is, I hope it goes through, as long as there are provisions so that incandescents can still be used under certain circumstances. But as for everyday home lighting, the incandescent should be abolished.
You could always use an intermediary teletype operator.
Up until about 8 months ago, I was running a PII 266 I got back in 1998. It fulfilled all my needs. But eventually all the RAM chips started dieing, and it would have cost almost as much for new RAM as it did to buy a new computer, so I bought a new computer, which cost more than the RAM did, but I wanted another computer that would last me 8 years. It's actually cheaper to buy a new PC than to buy even just Vista, so I think a lot of people will take this option.
But what about all the other people who don't really follow the tech news. They still have a rootkit on their computer. I remember when the news came out, there was nothing on the news that 98% of the population would listen to. Only stuff on geek sites like slashdot. I bet most people are completely unaware it even happened.
But wouldn't it be cool if you only had 1 storage device, which could be used for all your devices, such as PDA, Phone, MP3/Media Player, Camera, Laptop, along with a few others i'm probably forgetting? I think this device could be really nice if many different types of devices started to support it.
Isn't this the way it's always worked? Up until now, they've either had to guess, reverse engineer, or look at specs to develop the drivers. This just seems like an awareness campaign. I'm sure the devs were always willing to develop drivers, especially when they could get their hands on the specs.
Yeah, I got an Nforce4 motherboard, and I had to disable all that ActiveArmour stuff because I kept getting errors in just about every file I downloaded. Tried firmware and software updates and everything, problem still exists. Maybe next time I will buy a Mac, because they just work.
Maybe you're right. Maybe you're not. It doesn't matter. MS word still has problems rendering the same document the same way on different computers. Whether it's the printer or some other reason, the problem still exists. I don't know if they've fixed this in office 12, but as for Office 2003 (how many times are they going to change the version numbering?) The problem still occurs, where documents don't render the same on different computers.
I think this is probably the best option we have, although I'm not sure how well it will work. Most people just buy a computer and use whatever software comes with it. And if you start to talk about why they shouldn't be using Vista, their ears turn off because you are being too technical (no matter how much you try and dumb it down).
Display it with the information chopped off? I'm not really sure how Adobe handles this. Just display the information as if the printer could actually print at .4" borders, and then display a warning message when they try to print that lets them know that something will be cut off. I don't want my document changed just because I sent it to someone else who had a different printer than I do.
But doesn't the computer tell the printer what the document should look like, and not the other way around? Adobe PDF documents look the same on every computer, when printed as well as on the screen, why should MS word be any different? If Adobe can ignore the printer and display the document the same everywhere, and print it out the same, why can't MS word do this?