The folks involved wanted me to do the work (why else were we talking?), and are fairly reasonable people (most actually are). It's the organization that's both crazy and incompetent.
Speaking reasonably to the people usually results in a reasonable response. Speaking reasonably, in the same breath, to the organization usually results in no response at all--anything that deviates from the process is just ignored.
I typed up a letter that said something like
"It seems you're saying you own everything I do, ever. That just doesn't make sense to me; I must not be reading this correctly. Can you please have somebody phone me or arrange a meeting to explain what it is you're asking me to sign?"
Never heard from that department again.
My employer got the contract; I went to work, I didn't have to sign an insane agreement, and nobody was offended.
Similar situation--but a Client, not my employer.
The folks involved wanted me to do the work (why else were we talking?), and are fairly reasonable people (most actually are). It's the organization that's both crazy and incompetent.
Speaking reasonably to the people usually results in a reasonable response. Speaking reasonably, in the same breath, to the organization usually results in no response at all--anything that deviates from the process is just ignored.
I typed up a letter that said something like
"It seems you're saying you own everything I do, ever. That just doesn't make sense to me; I must not be reading this correctly. Can you please have somebody phone me or arrange a meeting to explain what it is you're asking me to sign?"
Never heard from that department again.
My employer got the contract; I went to work, I didn't have to sign an insane agreement, and nobody was offended.
My experience only; YMMV.
What Microsoft provided was an environment that anyone could use. Not necessarily a great OS or infrastructure, and certainly not one they created out of nothing. Just one that worked well enough that the average user could get by.
Now, everybody has PC and they want to go online and find stuff. The service Google provides is now relevant. Page & Brin create Google.
Thus Microsoft "created" Google.
Similar scale issues make PCs much cheaper, so one can potentially install a free OS into a cheap PC and have a working system for little or no money. By the same reasoning (I'm NOT the first one to put this one forward), Microsoft also "created" GNU and the whole free software movement.
A great invention does not spring out of empty space: Many sources contributes to an environment in which a great invention becomes relevant or feasible. The inventor contributes the great invention.
We ALL stand on the shoulders of giants. A more accurate measurement of one's height may start at one's feet, not at the ground far below us.
The job of the court, the judicial system, and society in general is order. Not Justice, not truth, not fact.
Consistently defining "Justice" is about as feasible as defining "Fair"--both depends on who you ask. So, any expectation that a court might manufacture some of it is delusion.
Justice is whatever the guys with the most guns say it is. If they say the intoxilizer is infallible, it is. We have order, and some of us call it justice if that helps us sleep. We don't care about the guy in jail, though; we've defined what happened to him as just.
Defendant got busted for drunk driving; throw him in jail, end of story. His search for "justice" is likely motivated by the fact he doesn't want to go to jail. Nothing to do with "justice" per se. Where was he when the rest of the drunks were getting busted?
So he gets the source code? Great. Now he screws with the order in the system. Distraction. Loss of productivity. Wailing and gnashing of teeth ensue.
The rest of us go to work satisfied we are safe from drunks and dictators. Jobs get done, and society functions.
One of the benefits of employer-funded insurance is that the employee's cost is spread out over a larger group.
Folks who are uninsurable on their own can get insurance if their risk is spread out among a larger group. The company subsidises the insurance for the unhealthy.
Getting the uninsurable out of the group by discouraging their participation reduces the employer's premiums and shifts the burden to the employee.
This is no different from any other cost savings measure that your friendly HR department implements in the "new improved company healthcare plan".
The justification presented for this decrease in compensation is that the employee is sinful (fat, smoker, high cholesterol, drinker, etc.), and therefore unworthy of the compensation offered to more morally upright employees.
It's not a new story--just one that needs to be recognized for what it is.
Harass their employer and point the finger at the employee. About 5 minutes after the first phone call, the boss says to the employee: "I don't know what you did and I really don't give a sh*t. We're running a business here and you're keeping us from getting things done. This is an at-will employment state. Got me?" (In Montana, they'll just call you into the office 3 times, document it, and THEN fire you)
Geez, even the scum of the earth, collection agencies, figured that one out! It's incredibly effective, there's NO recourse, and it hurts everyone. That's why it's explicitly illegal to do (for collection agencies).
The legislature simply change the law to criminalize the behaviour you can detect.
In the US, our we can't require people to prove that they are innocent. But, we can change the definition of the crime so that the police not knowing you're innocent *is* the crime.
Open container laws: Operating a vehicle with an open container in it is a crime. Operating a vehicle with a detectable cell phone in it will be a crime, too.
Actually drinking the booze, or talking on the phone is not the crime you're being charged with. You're charged with looking like you were doing those things. And if the fuzz says that's what it looked like to him, you're guilty.
1. Lack of diagnostics. Train your support crew to use two different sets of diag tools costs money. 2. Yes, linux drivers can crash hardware. I crashed my nikon film scanner using a beta SANE driver. Read the warning; chose to ignore it, drove the scan head off the end of the screw. $2000 broken toy. This was a few years ago, so may not be true anymore. 3. Dell would prefer to be seen as more friendly towards windows. If they say, in effect, "We support PCs with windows. We'll sell you a PC and even preload a GNU distro, but that's strictly your responsibility", they're keeping a major supplier happy.
Hey, they're good *business* reasons. They may not coincide with your personal ideology, but why should they?
You've got a right to privacy anywhere you've got a reasonable expectation of it.
Nude sunbathing behind a privacy fence means that you don't expect your neighbor's 15-year old son to get out his dad's stepladder. As soon as someone convinces a judge that people have reasonable expectation that satellite images of their nekkidness are going to be publicly available, that "reasonable expectation of privacy" goes away.
Do I understand correctly that parts of a contract can be voided if a judge determines them to be punitive?
I've never seen punitive terms in the contract e.g. By purchasing this Jeep at Big Bog's Discount Autohaus, you agree not to purchase a vehicle from anyone else for a period of 5 years. Violation of this agreement will result in a $1000 penalty. We have a lien on your house.)
Any of the Lock-in contracts I've ever signed are presented as ownership of some item of value in exchange for my agreement to pay for a service for some period. I've also seen contracts (e.g. Amerigas, my propane supplier) where you pay for the right to lock in a price. With ISPs, the item of value would be the guaranteed price.
When I read those contracts, it seems that the "early termination fee" is justified by saying "well, we gave you the satellite boxes, cell phones, etc... and you're just paying for them over time."
So, here's some questions for the lawyers--
If the customer doesn't get fair consideration for their money, is the part of the contract where they have to pay a termination fee punitive? And if it is punitive, how hard is it to get it voided--do you have to go to court? Finally, if the justification is that you're paying for something over time, do the penalties have to be pro-rated to not be considered punitive?
When you build a ship to sail deep space, you can't have a crew of mortal race; 'cause a hundred years from star to star with a human crew is just too far. Think of all the beer you'd have to bring, not to mention...other necessities.
So you fill your ship with a robot crew, you add a computer captain, too-- you get some experience for free, from some old spacer's personality. Like some shuttle pilot who's just learned from his last mistake....That's where I come in.
So, you find some bloke who's halfway dead, and you haul him home and you scan his head-- And a hundred years of flyin' high is a damned good deal when you're about to die! 'Till you've had a few decades to think about it. It gets lonely out in space. And a thousand frozen colonists don't count.
Well, there beyond my solar sail are five hundred hunks of frozen tail. If I thawed one out (and I know I could) it wouldn't do me a bit of good. Don't have any damned body. Just this starship.
Half a billion miles astern, it's another lonesome sucker's turn. So, I'll radio back and say "Hey, you!" Oh...I didn't know they took women, too. Lovely night out, tonight, isn't it? Gee, look at all them pretty stars. Yeah. Me too.
So, we'll talk and murmer "I love you" like other star-crossed lovers do, and in eighty years, we've made a date! Ever see two starships mate?
(That was from memory--Apologies to Frank Hayes for any mangling of his lyrics)
Slashdot Mirror
1. Defendant copies files (the copying).
2. Defendant put the files in a shared folder on his HDD.
3. 2. invalidates his fair-use right to 1.
Note that this argument does NOT require that he actually distributed any of the songs, or even connect to another computer.
You get rulings on this sort of stuff with a defendant that does NOT have a lawyer, then cite the precedent for those who do.
Similar situation--but a Client, not my employer.
The folks involved wanted me to do the work (why else were we talking?), and are fairly reasonable people (most actually are). It's the organization that's both crazy and incompetent.
Speaking reasonably to the people usually results in a reasonable response. Speaking reasonably, in the same breath, to the organization usually results in no response at all--anything that deviates from the process is just ignored.
I typed up a letter that said something like "It seems you're saying you own everything I do, ever. That just doesn't make sense to me; I must not be reading this correctly. Can you please have somebody phone me or arrange a meeting to explain what it is you're asking me to sign?"
Never heard from that department again. My employer got the contract; I went to work, I didn't have to sign an insane agreement, and nobody was offended.
My experience only; YMMV.
Similar situation--but a Client, not my employer. The folks involved wanted me to do the work (why else were we talking?), and are fairly reasonable people (most actually are). It's the organization that's both crazy and incompetent. Speaking reasonably to the people usually results in a reasonable response. Speaking reasonably, in the same breath, to the organization usually results in no response at all--anything that deviates from the process is just ignored. I typed up a letter that said something like "It seems you're saying you own everything I do, ever. That just doesn't make sense to me; I must not be reading this correctly. Can you please have somebody phone me or arrange a meeting to explain what it is you're asking me to sign?" Never heard from that department again. My employer got the contract; I went to work, I didn't have to sign an insane agreement, and nobody was offended. My experience only; YMMV.
Welcome to the surveillance society.
Solar power and zero gee sex.
What Microsoft provided was an environment that anyone could use.
Not necessarily a great OS or infrastructure, and certainly not one they created out of nothing.
Just one that worked well enough that the average user could get by.
Now, everybody has PC and they want to go online and find stuff.
The service Google provides is now relevant.
Page & Brin create Google.
Thus Microsoft "created" Google.
Similar scale issues make PCs much cheaper, so one can potentially install a free OS into a cheap PC and have a working system for little or no money.
By the same reasoning (I'm NOT the first one to put this one forward), Microsoft also "created" GNU and the whole free software movement.
A great invention does not spring out of empty space:
Many sources contributes to an environment in which a great invention becomes relevant or feasible.
The inventor contributes the great invention.
We ALL stand on the shoulders of giants.
A more accurate measurement of one's height may start at one's feet, not at the ground far below us.
http://nctn.hq.nasa.gov/innovation/Innovation74/riding.htm
I'd think the structure described (no pics?) would be pretty apparent?
Or did they just think they were vestigal?
Pick 2!
The job of the court, the judicial system, and society in general is order.
Not Justice, not truth, not fact.
Consistently defining "Justice" is about as feasible as defining "Fair"--both depends on who you ask. So, any expectation that a court might manufacture some of it is delusion.
Justice is whatever the guys with the most guns say it is.
If they say the intoxilizer is infallible, it is.
We have order, and some of us call it justice if that helps us sleep.
We don't care about the guy in jail, though; we've defined what happened to him as just.
Defendant got busted for drunk driving; throw him in jail, end of story.
His search for "justice" is likely motivated by the fact he doesn't want to go to jail.
Nothing to do with "justice" per se. Where was he when the rest of the drunks were getting busted?
So he gets the source code? Great. Now he screws with the order in the system.
Distraction. Loss of productivity. Wailing and gnashing of teeth ensue.
The rest of us go to work satisfied we are safe from drunks and dictators.
Jobs get done, and society functions.
Solution involved a Farmer's daughter, which she apparently was.
Oh, wait--they CAN have it both ways. Never mind.
Folks who are uninsurable on their own can get insurance if their risk is spread out among a larger group. The company subsidises the insurance for the unhealthy.
Getting the uninsurable out of the group by discouraging their participation reduces the employer's premiums and shifts the burden to the employee.
This is no different from any other cost savings measure that your friendly HR department implements in the "new improved company healthcare plan".
The justification presented for this decrease in compensation is that the employee is sinful (fat, smoker, high cholesterol, drinker, etc.), and therefore unworthy of the compensation offered to more morally upright employees.
It's not a new story--just one that needs to be recognized for what it is.
Venn ist das nurnstuck git und slotermeyer? Ya! Beigerhund das oder die flipperwaldt gersput!
Harass their employer and point the finger at the employee.
About 5 minutes after the first phone call, the boss says to the employee:
"I don't know what you did and I really don't give a sh*t. We're running a business here and you're keeping us from getting things done. This is an at-will employment state. Got me?"
(In Montana, they'll just call you into the office 3 times, document it, and THEN fire you)
Geez, even the scum of the earth, collection agencies, figured that one out!
It's incredibly effective, there's NO recourse, and it hurts everyone.
That's why it's explicitly illegal to do (for collection agencies).
Hizzonner needs to pull his head out.
can generate "truly" random numbers.
...is not aboard the Enterprise.
The legislature simply change the law to criminalize the behaviour you can detect.
In the US, our we can't require people to prove that they are innocent.
But, we can change the definition of the crime so that the police not knowing you're innocent *is* the crime.
Open container laws: Operating a vehicle with an open container in it is a crime.
Operating a vehicle with a detectable cell phone in it will be a crime, too.
Actually drinking the booze, or talking on the phone is not the crime you're being charged with.
You're charged with looking like you were doing those things.
And if the fuzz says that's what it looked like to him, you're guilty.
1. Lack of diagnostics. Train your support crew to use two different sets of diag tools costs money.
2. Yes, linux drivers can crash hardware. I crashed my nikon film scanner using a beta SANE driver. Read the warning; chose to ignore it, drove the scan head off the end of the screw. $2000 broken toy. This was a few years ago, so may not be true anymore.
3. Dell would prefer to be seen as more friendly towards windows. If they say, in effect, "We support PCs with windows. We'll sell you a PC and even preload a GNU distro, but that's strictly your responsibility", they're keeping a major supplier happy.
Hey, they're good *business* reasons.
They may not coincide with your personal ideology, but why should they?
Ah, yes. ;)
I believe the concept you're missing here is refered to as "tongue in cheek".
And let's leave it at that.
Is a moving target.
You've got a right to privacy anywhere you've got a reasonable expectation of it.
Nude sunbathing behind a privacy fence means that you don't expect your neighbor's 15-year old son to get out his dad's stepladder.
As soon as someone convinces a judge that people have reasonable expectation that satellite images of their nekkidness are going to be publicly available, that "reasonable expectation of privacy" goes away.
If this hasn't happened yet, it will soon.
Same thing with the street images.
Why do you think ships are referred to as "she"?
For the lawyers in the room--
Do I understand correctly that parts of a contract can be voided if a judge determines them to be punitive?
I've never seen punitive terms in the contract e.g. By purchasing this Jeep at Big Bog's Discount Autohaus, you agree not to purchase a vehicle from anyone else for a period of 5 years. Violation of this agreement will result in a $1000 penalty. We have a lien on your house.)
Any of the Lock-in contracts I've ever signed are presented as ownership of some item of value in exchange for my agreement to pay for a service for some period.
I've also seen contracts (e.g. Amerigas, my propane supplier) where you pay for the right to lock in a price.
With ISPs, the item of value would be the guaranteed price.
When I read those contracts, it seems that the "early termination fee" is justified by saying "well, we gave you the satellite boxes, cell phones, etc... and you're just paying for them over time."
So, here's some questions for the lawyers--
If the customer doesn't get fair consideration for their money, is the part of the contract where they have to pay a termination fee punitive?
And if it is punitive, how hard is it to get it voided--do you have to go to court?
Finally, if the justification is that you're paying for something over time, do the penalties have to be pro-rated to not be considered punitive?
When you build a ship to sail deep space,
...That's where I come in.
you can't have a crew of mortal race;
'cause a hundred years from star to star
with a human crew is just too far.
Think of all the beer you'd have to bring,
not to mention...other necessities.
So you fill your ship with a robot crew,
you add a computer captain, too--
you get some experience for free,
from some old spacer's personality.
Like some shuttle pilot who's just learned from his last mistake.
So, you find some bloke who's halfway dead,
and you haul him home and you scan his head--
And a hundred years of flyin' high is a damned good deal when you're about to die!
'Till you've had a few decades to think about it.
It gets lonely out in space.
And a thousand frozen colonists don't count.
Well, there beyond my solar sail
are five hundred hunks of frozen tail.
If I thawed one out (and I know I could)
it wouldn't do me a bit of good.
Don't have any damned body.
Just this starship.
Half a billion miles astern,
it's another lonesome sucker's turn.
So, I'll radio back and say "Hey, you!"
Oh...I didn't know they took women, too.
Lovely night out, tonight, isn't it?
Gee, look at all them pretty stars.
Yeah. Me too.
So, we'll talk and murmer "I love you"
like other star-crossed lovers do,
and in eighty years, we've made a date!
Ever see two starships mate?
(That was from memory--Apologies to Frank Hayes for any mangling of his lyrics)