Grandparent meant "non-compete," I'm sure. These often specify that you will not seek employment from their competitors within a year (or other timeframe) of leaving (by your choice or theirs).
We recently lured a vice president away by another company, and due to his contract from his former employer, he can't be engaged in business deals for 12 months with them.
There's a solution for that, if it happens again. The international phonetic alphabet, which any war vet would know, makes each letter sound quite different from others. See the revised conversation:
"Format Charlie:/ \Sierra"
"Echo?"
"Echo off."
"Golf?"
"Sure - it's better than fixing your computer!"
I don't recall seeing that law.
No, there is no law requiring companies to make profits. Companies try to make profits while complying with laws. Traditionally, laws reduce profits because, hey, if it were profitable you wouldn't need a law to make people do it!
Who benefits if there are high short-term profits, but the company fails after alienating its customers?
Anyone who sold stock early. Some days you're the stool, other days you're the pigeon. Once the company sells the stock, regular Joes like you and me realize gains or losses based on how others perceive their performance to be. Like Fantasy Football, but with real money.
It certainly doesn't help the long-term shareholders when their stock becomes worthless.
Let me guess, you got burned. Well, sometimes the market goes down - seen an ad for buggy whips recently?
Companies have a responsibility to provide a reasonable return and long-term growth for their shareholders.
Define reasonable. I say 5% annually above inflation. Of course, if I could get 10%, I'd demand that too. Companies are responsible to their shareholders, but maybe their product is mighty fine junk. Why not get off your high horse about others' responsibility and make sure you're providing value. Long-term growth? In the long-term, we're all dead.
Wow. If my government's that good at tracking things, maybe next they'll put RFID in planes so they know when they're flying into buildings!
[twisted humor]
Scene:
Man1: How's the warehouse inventory project going?
Man2: Well, we've got 2504 cans of tuna fish, 478 radial tires, and one Boeing 747.
Man1: A Boeing 747? WTF?
Man2: No, WTC! Hahahaha!
I couldn't agree more - any economic model that included environmental costs of some kind would be an amazing leap forward and represent a huge (and needed) change in our attitude to the planet.
As an economist, I agree that all costs need to be represented to make a truly best-case assessment of the right outcome. Where you will find the difficulty is deciding the cost per unit of CO2 gas emissions etc... and the consequences of our choices.
What would you do if the result of your study said "Cows are the biggest drain on the environment due to their CH4 production"? Would you slaughter all cows?
The second challenge, and a reason I am opposed to international government mandates, is deciding what enforcement process will come out of the analysis. Some allege that UN resolutions are passed by the many to punish the US for its success. I won't take that dramatic a stance, but will ask why the Kyoto Protocol ignores developing nations' contributions to pollution. As any tax collector knows, the more exemptions we create to our assessment structure, the shakier a foundation we have for collecting that assessment (i.e. a reduction in global pollution).
Which is why people having sex indoors are obviously doing it wrong?
The quote is a lie, a bunch of trash pulled out by someone not educated in our sphere of law. "Guilty until proven innocent" is an exact translation of this quote's intent.
real, detailed, complete examination of government behaviour, with equal air time to truly dissenting opinions (how many times has Chomsky been on CNN in the past 4 months?) is out of the question
On the way to the loony bin, don't forget your tinfoil hat. Alternatively, you could turn on NPR and hear nothing but the horrors and evils of the current administration.
Environmentalist: We're running out, and our current wasteful practices mean we're running out fast!
Apathetic response: Who cares about a bunch of dead plants anyway?
Your response: John Ashcroft cares! Because when you buy two tons of dead dinosaur plants, you're driving with terrorists!
My response: If they're extinct, why do I care? How about getting upset over kids starving in Africa instead? If we can feed them with two tons of dead dinosaur plants, let me know. Until then, vroom!
When Grandma wants the Internet for just her stock quotes and a few eMails, she doesn't need unlimited hours. It worked for CompuServe and Prodigy for years - why shouldn't it work for a niche market now?
Deep in the article the truth of the issue comes out.
"It was an ethical problem," he said. Mr. Eaton also noted that the feature demanded a disproportionate amount of attention from his technical support staff.
This feature became costly enough that Mr. Eaton decided to honor his ethics. If only every unethical activity was extremely costly...
So you mean that if I cause a traffic accident while coding, this will keep me from losing my data even when my brains splatter across the windshield? Cool...
Because computer programs are perfect. Because simulations are more real than reality. Because we couldn't think of any other variables to program in.
Lies, damn lies, and statistical simulators.
96% of the gender earnings gap has been shown by mathematical models to come from different levels of experience and education, and other factors besides male vs. female. Just looking at two variables, gender and income, is incomplete. I'm not convinced the CO2 simulator is complete either.
An irrational number is any number of hours my manager suggests I will need to rewrite a section of code.
Or the number of dollars my wife wishes to spend on shoes.
Or are they free as is (supposed to be) the press?
Free... as in beer
It's not about the technology - your question should be, "Do the rules behind web forums tend to encourage one type of freedom over another?" And the answer, to help you out, is "Yes. Deal with it."
What about the impact to 'real' people, folks using the site as it was meant to be used? You can't argue in favour of total freedom to do whatever the hell you want unless you grant Abrams the same power.
Ham Radio is current technology, and is useful for far more than just old (or young) fogeys typing in Morse code. When you have broadband access on the moon and on the International Space Station, please let me know.
Ham Radio does not get spammed, does not receive DDOS attacks, was instrumental in coordinating rescue volunteers at the World Trade Center after 9/11, is Internet-compatible (google for IRLP), doesn't have to cost a penny after you buy your radio, and Ham operators are not being sued by SCO or the RIAA, or monitored by the FBI or DOJ.
On the other hand, ham radio does not have major pr0n sites or warez traders.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, there was one on the page with the article. They wouldn't be hypocrites, now would they?
Is this what we put on trojan horses nowadays to prevent disease?
And to think of all the disappointed Boy Scouts looking forward to eating Brownies...
If you previewed first
This would never have happened
Penguin drinking tea
We recently lured a vice president away by another company, and due to his contract from his former employer, he can't be engaged in business deals for 12 months with them.
"Format Charlie :/ \Sierra"
"Echo?"
"Echo off."
"Golf?"
"Sure - it's better than fixing your computer!"
Or you could just hope it never happens again.
I don't recall seeing that law.
No, there is no law requiring companies to make profits. Companies try to make profits while complying with laws. Traditionally, laws reduce profits because, hey, if it were profitable you wouldn't need a law to make people do it!
Who benefits if there are high short-term profits, but the company fails after alienating its customers?
Anyone who sold stock early. Some days you're the stool, other days you're the pigeon. Once the company sells the stock, regular Joes like you and me realize gains or losses based on how others perceive their performance to be. Like Fantasy Football, but with real money.
It certainly doesn't help the long-term shareholders when their stock becomes worthless.
Let me guess, you got burned. Well, sometimes the market goes down - seen an ad for buggy whips recently?
Companies have a responsibility to provide a reasonable return and long-term growth for their shareholders.
Define reasonable. I say 5% annually above inflation. Of course, if I could get 10%, I'd demand that too. Companies are responsible to their shareholders, but maybe their product is mighty fine junk. Why not get off your high horse about others' responsibility and make sure you're providing value. Long-term growth? In the long-term, we're all dead.
[twisted humor]
Scene:
Man1: How's the warehouse inventory project going?
Man2: Well, we've got 2504 cans of tuna fish, 478 radial tires, and one Boeing 747.
Man1: A Boeing 747? WTF?
Man2: No, WTC! Hahahaha!
[/twisted humor]
As an economist, I agree that all costs need to be represented to make a truly best-case assessment of the right outcome. Where you will find the difficulty is deciding the cost per unit of CO2 gas emissions etc... and the consequences of our choices.
What would you do if the result of your study said "Cows are the biggest drain on the environment due to their CH4 production"? Would you slaughter all cows?
The second challenge, and a reason I am opposed to international government mandates, is deciding what enforcement process will come out of the analysis. Some allege that UN resolutions are passed by the many to punish the US for its success. I won't take that dramatic a stance, but will ask why the Kyoto Protocol ignores developing nations' contributions to pollution. As any tax collector knows, the more exemptions we create to our assessment structure, the shakier a foundation we have for collecting that assessment (i.e. a reduction in global pollution).
The quote is a lie, a bunch of trash pulled out by someone not educated in our sphere of law. "Guilty until proven innocent" is an exact translation of this quote's intent.
On the way to the loony bin, don't forget your tinfoil hat. Alternatively, you could turn on NPR and hear nothing but the horrors and evils of the current administration.
You troll.
Apathetic response: Who cares about a bunch of dead plants anyway?
Your response: John Ashcroft cares! Because when you buy two tons of dead dinosaur plants, you're driving with terrorists!
My response: If they're extinct, why do I care? How about getting upset over kids starving in Africa instead? If we can feed them with two tons of dead dinosaur plants, let me know. Until then, vroom!
When Grandma wants the Internet for just her stock quotes and a few eMails, she doesn't need unlimited hours. It worked for CompuServe and Prodigy for years - why shouldn't it work for a niche market now?
"It was an ethical problem," he said. Mr. Eaton also noted that the feature demanded a disproportionate amount of attention from his technical support staff.
This feature became costly enough that Mr. Eaton decided to honor his ethics. If only every unethical activity was extremely costly...
So you mean that if I cause a traffic accident while coding, this will keep me from losing my data even when my brains splatter across the windshield? Cool...
Because computer programs are perfect.
Because simulations are more real than reality.
Because we couldn't think of any other variables to program in.
Lies, damn lies, and statistical simulators.
96% of the gender earnings gap has been shown by mathematical models to come from different levels of experience and education, and other factors besides male vs. female. Just looking at two variables, gender and income, is incomplete. I'm not convinced the CO2 simulator is complete either.
I for one welcome... oh never mind.
Your city has its own Bugzilla?
Cool...
SCO to find them,
One license to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
RivenDELL's not so safe after all, little Hobbit.
An irrational number is any number of hours my manager suggests I will need to rewrite a section of code.
Or the number of dollars my wife wishes to spend on shoes.
Because we have and continue to use our ham radios, you can get on with your lives.
"640Kb ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates.
Free... as in beer
It's not about the technology - your question should be, "Do the rules behind web forums tend to encourage one type of freedom over another?" And the answer, to help you out, is "Yes. Deal with it."
What about the impact to 'real' people, folks using the site as it was meant to be used? You can't argue in favour of total freedom to do whatever the hell you want unless you grant Abrams the same power.
My football, my rules.
ARRLWeb Affiliated Club Search
There are only 17 clubs within 20 miles of my zipcode.
To become one yourself, consider:
Welcome to Amateur Radio!
And if you're less insensitive, I might volunteer use of my generator to keep your PC running while I radio the county office of emergency services.
Ham Radio does not get spammed, does not receive DDOS attacks, was instrumental in coordinating rescue volunteers at the World Trade Center after 9/11, is Internet-compatible (google for IRLP), doesn't have to cost a penny after you buy your radio, and Ham operators are not being sued by SCO or the RIAA, or monitored by the FBI or DOJ.
On the other hand, ham radio does not have major pr0n sites or warez traders.
Take your pick.