While I agree with the sentiment, are artists really leaving in "droves?" Other than indie artists maybe never pursuing a label to start with, how many already-signed artists are leaving the labels?
How many have the legal right to do so? Aren't most artists working for the big labels locked into Draconian contracts that restrict them to either selling their work to the labels, or not selling their work at all?
What if your boss is a staunch Republican and contributes to the Mike Huckabee election campaign, and he sees a picture of you on TV or on the web at a Barack Obama rally? Or even worse, at an anti-Chuck Norris rally?
Oh, no need to worry about your boss firing you. Chuck Norris would sense it and roundhouse-kick you into the sun.
I always tell people never put personal info on the net because ANYONE can find it. I was actually denied a job because i didn't state if i was Christian! The interview went great, i was able to do everything they asked for, but because i wouldn't answer if i had anything to do on sunday or with family, which i understood as asking about my religion in a not so very indirect way (asking about family values etc) they told me right then and their, "thanks but no thanks." hahaha
You know, more and more cell phones have the capability to record audio, which might be useful in cases where crimes like these are hard to prove otherwise.
It also happens to be true. If you're somehow managing to survive without it now, then by definition you don't *need* it.
Circumstances change of course. While this doesn't apply so much to entertainment devices, new technology eventually goes from luxury to necessity.
For instance, take the water heater. People lived for millions of years without it. But try living in modern society without regular access to a shower.
The problem, simply put, is that we as a people need to collectively say "No!" to such nonsense. Not in some Marxist, communist nonsense way, but in a way that asserts our rights as a people once again.
There's only one way to do that, and it's a word that has been demonized for a while as exactly that "Marxist, communist nonsense way" - unions.
It doesn't matter what form it takes, employees coming together as a group to stand up for themselves will be called Communism ever time.
If I were an employer (I'm not), then what about my economic right not to have to employee someone who does things that cost me customers? Suppose your intern gets drunk at a bar and beats up your best customer.
Being entirely unreachable because you're stuck in a church, or in a brothel, or out-of-state, or on a camping trip is a perfectly good reason to give the job to someone who is always near-by, and can be called in when their presence is required after-hours.
So in other words, your employees never get vacation time. Good to know. What's the name of your company again?
The death penalty is not a deterrent for anything. There are some pretty draconian laws for capital punishment for street crimes in the US, but it's not like those US states are safer than Canada because of that.
Reminds me of Freakonomics, which showed evidence that drug dealers on the street in one area have a higher chance of getting killed in a year than death row inmates are.
When they go to whip out their credit card to buy that new inkjet, they truly do confident when the girl at the cash register is so disaffected that she doesn't even bother to look at the card before swiping it, let alone check the signature, or even verify that you signed the receipt at all.
Part of this is from the credit card companies themselves - they don't want CC holders to be too inconvenienced by taking some basic security measures, so they tell the stores that take their cards to not be too strict in this regard.
yes you can, your bank and credit card company do it all the time - send you notice of change of t's and c's, you could write and refuse, but then essentially you're giving notice of intent to terminate the contract.
You had previously entered into an explicit contract with them (opened an account), and I'm sure somewhere in their terms it says they can change the contract by giving notice. You can make silence the condition of accepting these new changes in your original contract - you can't create a new one by just sending an email with your terms. If you could, spam would be a much bigger problem.
In my example, what you are doing is turning the verbal contract into a written one by putting it in writing, your supplier (bank etc) then has to refute your written version of their contract.
Civil court requires a preponderance of evidence, but you still have to tip the scales to your favor, if just barely. And who do you think has a better understanding of the bank's intentions - you, or an employee of the bank?
In my recollection, written correspondence can be used as proof of a contract only if it is used against the person sending it.
In other words, the bank etc could use it against you, but you couldn't use it against them.
This is also good practise if, say, you have to ring the bank with some issue of policy or a dispute and they tell you something which you think might be rescinded later - write and say "in according with telephone conversation on Xth of $Month you told me blah blah and this means I shall...." - and ensure you keep signed and dated copies... months later if they change their mind you can point to the letter and say that since they didn't countermand it, the contract as offered in the letter stands.
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure you can't create a contract by sending someone correspondence and taking their silence as acceptance of your terms.
I think it's reasonable for a company to have a contract that is a non-compete if the employee decides to leave and a non-compete + compensation if the employer dismisses them.
If they do this, they'll never fire the employee. They'll simply make the employee's life hell until he quits - no real difference.
What I don't get is why we seemingly refuse to invest for the long-term in the United States. Sure, some companies do, generally the smarter ones. But when it comes to public infrastructure, politicians haven't found a way to inform the public that by spending 2x as much now, we're saving 20x as much over the next n years.
Perhaps because we don't believe them?
It's easy to SAY that you'll save a lot in the future, and then not deliver. Most likely the particular politician that claimed that will have moved on by then, or the blame will be watered down across, for instance, the entire Senate.
Agreed. I however am one of the minority who did question these assumptions, and continue to do so on a regular basis. This questioning has unfailingly pushed me toward a belief that no person or group of persons has the right to rule over any other without the latter's informed consent.
They may not have the right, but they quite often have the power. This is what we have to contend with - stopping those who are willing to use power to infringe on the rights of others.
This is why Libertarianism doesn't work - it doesn't provide a means for doing this.
He told me that they would be doing raises very soon, and the stock agreement was almost complete (this is 7 months ago), and that we had to have this agreement in place in order to meet the requirements of their business agreement with $big_client, which required it for HIPAA. Like an idiot, I signed it, and I have no raise, no stock, and no rights.
Ah, you got caught by the "vague promises of great things in exchange for concrete concessions now" gambit. My condolences.
This is why whenever I hear the words "someday", "soon" or the like, I totally ignore them when I'm making decisions.
Slashdot Mirror
For instance, take the water heater. People lived for millions of years without it. But try living in modern society without regular access to a shower.
It doesn't matter what form it takes, employees coming together as a group to stand up for themselves will be called Communism ever time.
Several people do appreciate that. The credit card companies apparently think that significantly more people don't want to be bothered.
Which is why, as you say, you'd be the first cashier to check the ID in years.
And I hate the bands you like!
You had previously entered into an explicit contract with them (opened an account), and I'm sure somewhere in their terms it says they can change the contract by giving notice. You can make silence the condition of accepting these new changes in your original contract - you can't create a new one by just sending an email with your terms. If you could, spam would be a much bigger problem. Civil court requires a preponderance of evidence, but you still have to tip the scales to your favor, if just barely. And who do you think has a better understanding of the bank's intentions - you, or an employee of the bank?
In my recollection, written correspondence can be used as proof of a contract only if it is used against the person sending it.
In other words, the bank etc could use it against you, but you couldn't use it against them.
It's easy to SAY that you'll save a lot in the future, and then not deliver. Most likely the particular politician that claimed that will have moved on by then, or the blame will be watered down across, for instance, the entire Senate.
Close. Fraud is illegal because people don't want to be defrauded. Not quite the same thing, though it's very similar.
This is why Libertarianism doesn't work - it doesn't provide a means for doing this.
This is why whenever I hear the words "someday", "soon" or the like, I totally ignore them when I'm making decisions.
Some anti-cell phone guy with a jammer must be following you around everywhere you go out of spite. You should be on the lookout for him.
Luckily, there are very few jamming devices on remote mountain hiking trails.
He didn't claim to be surprised.
I've got a better mnemonic:
If it looks like a snake, get the fuck away.