Who cares what Jobs thinks. I can talk to his employees all I want. If Jobs is unhappy with something that an employee is doing he can fire them. If Jobs is unhappy with something an employee at another company is doing he can suck it.
Depends on the jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions do allow employers some power in combatting poaching. But apparently not California.
What you say is absolutely true. And if it was purely based on intrinsic talent of the employee, then employers wouldn't object to it so much.
The problem is this scenario: An employee employed and trained by Employer A, much of his worth is what he knows about the industry that he gained whilst working for Employer A plus the secrets of employer A.
Employer B that poaches him is not just getting the benefit of the talent that the employee brought to the table, but the value that was added by their employment at employer A.
Employer B may well be poaching as a shortcut to competing with Employer A, taking advantage of information that they wouldn't otherwise have.
Whilst anti-poaching agreements are illegal in some jurisdictions, others recognise that poaching can be unfair. For example when Symbian's Juha Christensen was poached by Microsoft, the matter was taken to court, and Juha was ordered to delay starting work with Microsoft for 6 months, so that current business secrets would have less value. So called "gardening leave".
And how do you propose to get around using Google and Intel products? It's not impossible, but it's much easier than not using Apple products, and if you refuse to admit that, then you're either a liar, a shill, or a moron.
I don't propose to get around using them. You're the one who wants credit for boycotting products whilst not changing which products you chose at all.
Your insults don't apply. You're simply angry because your hypocrisy has been pointed out. And so you're shooting your mouth off.
You sound like one of these morons that thinks everything is black and white.
Quite the contrary. I'm not the one who's saying poaching or anti-poaching agreements are good or bad. I don't believe there is an absolute right or wrong in this.
Ever heard the phrase "pick your battles"?
Yes. And it doesn't apply to boycottting products. It can't do, because the whole point is to pick what products you buy based on morality rather than convenience or quality or taste.
Since you claim to not be a hypocrite, why don't you tell us what kind of CPU you're using here, and what kind of phone you have?
I'm not claiming to be boycotting anyone. I buy based on quality. So there is no hypocrisy possible here.
It's where recruiters actively go to employees of a company, because employees of that company are likely to have the desired skills.
Palm employees have every right to speak to Apple employees when those Apple employees are not on the clock.
Sure they do. That speaking may or may not be for the purpose of poaching though.
Poaching is not illegal. And indeed anti-poaching agreements are illegal in some jurisdictions. But it's debatable where the morality is.
Steve Jobs was such an asshole he stole from Woz. You know the guy that without Apple would never have even existed.
Ah right. So this is just you venting your hatred of SJ again. Google and Intel are equally culpable, but you actually use their products, so they don't feature in your rant. You're a hypocrite.
I'm not sure what point you're making here. Of those 4, only Microsoft is not included in the no-poaching agreements. But they have done other ethically questionable things.
There's a matter of practicality here: some company's products are easier to avoid than others.... Google's obviously much harder... With Intel, it's similar...
You do realise that's a completely self serving argument. You've chosen to use Google's and Intel's products, and you want to defend your choice, AND attack the companies you didn't chose, regardless of the fact that they were all involved in the same shady practice.
Strange. In your first paragraph you seem to understand some of RMS's insanity. Then in the second you suggest that you think he might be right.
To further the analogy, whilst it's good to encourage genuinely wild and untamed animals back to the wild, it would be crazy to turn out domestic animals to the wild, where they wouldn't be able to hunt and/or avoid predators.
How does that equate to GNU/Linux? Perhaps that it's OK to encourage people that know how to program (hunt), and about security (defense from predators) to use GNU/Linux. But it's madness to fight to get ordinary users to use it. They are happier and better off with Windows or OSX, so stop being dicks about it.
I know the difference between gun crime and violent crime, I know gun crime has doubled in the UK since the gun ban and violent crime has gone up in Australia since the gun ban.
Rarely has a cherry picker of data made it so plain that's what he is doing. You are dishonest.
It looks like you didn't even understand the post to which I was originally responding. It's not about over population, in fact he says "While over population can be a problem, the planet is not (and was not) suffering from that."
His post is about low birthrate. He thinks we should be having more babies.
And the countries that follow the USA on the Obese-o-meter, mostly got there because of the US export of fast food outlets to any country that can afford them.
That is not what it assumes. First you assume that there is a decrease in the number of consumers, that is not true, and even if there was a price decrease will still lead to a shift in demand from those that still have jobs, which is vastly more then lost them. That extra revenue will lead to expansion and so forth..
You seem to have forgotten what the product is. If cheaper burgers means greater demand, then people become even more obese than they already are, and even more of them become unable to work.
Technology unemployment cannot be solved by ever increasing consumption.
You seem to have failed to respond to my points.Do you now accept that violent crime is a much more useful measure of the efficacy of particular legislation?
No. And my previous post told you exactly why. Nothing you said changed that.
Have you read that "study". It tries to control for so many factors it basically looks like they are obscuring the numbers and it certainly does not correlate with international numbers. I can't even find what the un-adjusted numbers they used were.
It has numbers you don't like.
Yes, the NRA was lobbying for action to stop the CDC and yes they got it. That does not by any means mean that the results of any study would have been contradictory to all the other major studies that don't seem to find any real benefit to gun control laws aside from lowering the rate of successful suicides
That is misstating the balance of the evidence out there. As I already said, the problem is that the internet is flooded with NRA and other pro-gun sites and blogs, virtually all of which distort and cherry pick. The only reason the NRA opposed the CDC doing research is that they don't like the truth. It has nothing to do with personally identifiable information. Research studies publish statistics, not names and addresses.
For example, murder is murder, but according to your hypothesis murder rates would go up with rates of gun ownership, since "being shot is clearly worse" and you don't get much worse than death. But that correlation does not happen.
Legislation was passed to stop the CDC from collecting information about this because people were concerned when the CDC started building a database of personally identifiable information on gun owners
It was the CDC, But I see no evidence for that. Indeed if it was that, they could have simply banned the collection of such personally identifiable information. The truth is the ban came about simply because of lobbying by the NRA, because they dislike data which shows gun control is a good thing.
Books written about things like going to the moon and orbital satellites before the '60s were fiction as well.
As was Lord of the Rings.
Fiction is imagination and fantasy. Even when it's plausible it does nothing more than reflect the imagination of the author. To raise certain chosen fictions to the model of prophesy makes no more sense than astrology, reading tea-leaves, or believing Nostrodamus, or end of the world in 2012.
It's very common to think that Nineteen Eighty-Four is a prophesy that is likely to come true. Believing in astrology is also very common. They are both the actions of gullible minds.
Mein Kampf was fiction too
No, Mein Kampf was never fiction. It was exposition of an actual political ideology, using the vehicle of auto-biography.
Hello? McFly?
Indeed, believing in Back to the Future as prediction is no more ridiculous than believing in Nineteen Eighty-four.
Exact same arguments work for the atomic bomb in 1945.
No it wouldn't. As I already pointed out the nuclear bomb field was created in the 1940s - there was no precedent. Population and society have existed through all of history, there is plenty of precedent.
Requiring historical examples for new phenomena, be they demographical, or physical, is equally stupid.
Again, no one "required" historical examples. I asked for them to establish probability, not possibility. At that point the OP revealed that his source was a charlatan.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can't put Tiddles the pussy cat out into the wild, you should kill her?
Poor Tiddles.
for fixed term employment with high penalties for early exit or no-compete clauses.
Those too are illegal in certain jurisdictions. Including I think California.
That does not prevent us from saying someone specific is an asshole because of that
No, it doesn't prevent you. You can say what you like. But it does mean you are a hypocrite.
Who cares what Jobs thinks. I can talk to his employees all I want. If Jobs is unhappy with something that an employee is doing he can fire them. If Jobs is unhappy with something an employee at another company is doing he can suck it.
Depends on the jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions do allow employers some power in combatting poaching. But apparently not California.
What you say is absolutely true. And if it was purely based on intrinsic talent of the employee, then employers wouldn't object to it so much.
The problem is this scenario: An employee employed and trained by Employer A, much of his worth is what he knows about the industry that he gained whilst working for Employer A plus the secrets of employer A.
Employer B that poaches him is not just getting the benefit of the talent that the employee brought to the table, but the value that was added by their employment at employer A.
Employer B may well be poaching as a shortcut to competing with Employer A, taking advantage of information that they wouldn't otherwise have.
Whilst anti-poaching agreements are illegal in some jurisdictions, others recognise that poaching can be unfair. For example when Symbian's Juha Christensen was poached by Microsoft, the matter was taken to court, and Juha was ordered to delay starting work with Microsoft for 6 months, so that current business secrets would have less value. So called "gardening leave".
And how do you propose to get around using Google and Intel products? It's not impossible, but it's much easier than not using Apple products, and if you refuse to admit that, then you're either a liar, a shill, or a moron.
I don't propose to get around using them. You're the one who wants credit for boycotting products whilst not changing which products you chose at all.
Your insults don't apply. You're simply angry because your hypocrisy has been pointed out. And so you're shooting your mouth off.
You sound like one of these morons that thinks everything is black and white.
Quite the contrary. I'm not the one who's saying poaching or anti-poaching agreements are good or bad. I don't believe there is an absolute right or wrong in this.
Ever heard the phrase "pick your battles"?
Yes. And it doesn't apply to boycottting products. It can't do, because the whole point is to pick what products you buy based on morality rather than convenience or quality or taste.
Since you claim to not be a hypocrite, why don't you tell us what kind of CPU you're using here, and what kind of phone you have?
I'm not claiming to be boycotting anyone. I buy based on quality. So there is no hypocrisy possible here.
Define poaching.
It's where recruiters actively go to employees of a company, because employees of that company are likely to have the desired skills.
Palm employees have every right to speak to Apple employees when those Apple employees are not on the clock.
Sure they do. That speaking may or may not be for the purpose of poaching though.
Poaching is not illegal. And indeed anti-poaching agreements are illegal in some jurisdictions. But it's debatable where the morality is.
Steve Jobs was such an asshole he stole from Woz. You know the guy that without Apple would never have even existed.
Ah right. So this is just you venting your hatred of SJ again. Google and Intel are equally culpable, but you actually use their products, so they don't feature in your rant. You're a hypocrite.
I'm not sure what point you're making here. Of those 4, only Microsoft is not included in the no-poaching agreements. But they have done other ethically questionable things.
So what's your point?
Look kids, you have to pick your fights. For me its been Apple. Apple has been my windmill. All others are nessessary evil.
Then you too are a hypocrite.
I'm willing to boycott products where it's easy for me to not use them.
Then your so called boycott is doing absolutely nothing. Because you aren't differentiating between companies based on bad practices at all.
In fact all that's happening here is you are trying to feel good about purchase decisions you would have already made anyway.
Undoubtably you are the hypocrite here, not the OP.
There's a matter of practicality here: some company's products are easier to avoid than others....
Google's obviously much harder... With Intel, it's similar...
You do realise that's a completely self serving argument. You've chosen to use Google's and Intel's products, and you want to defend your choice, AND attack the companies you didn't chose, regardless of the fact that they were all involved in the same shady practice.
Strange. In your first paragraph you seem to understand some of RMS's insanity. Then in the second you suggest that you think he might be right.
To further the analogy, whilst it's good to encourage genuinely wild and untamed animals back to the wild, it would be crazy to turn out domestic animals to the wild, where they wouldn't be able to hunt and/or avoid predators.
How does that equate to GNU/Linux? Perhaps that it's OK to encourage people that know how to program (hunt), and about security (defense from predators) to use GNU/Linux. But it's madness to fight to get ordinary users to use it. They are happier and better off with Windows or OSX, so stop being dicks about it.
I know the difference between gun crime and violent crime, I know gun crime has doubled in the UK since the gun ban and violent crime has gone up in Australia since the gun ban.
Rarely has a cherry picker of data made it so plain that's what he is doing. You are dishonest.
It looks like you didn't even understand the post to which I was originally responding. It's not about over population, in fact he says "While over population can be a problem, the planet is not (and was not) suffering from that."
His post is about low birthrate. He thinks we should be having more babies.
It's no joke. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity
And the countries that follow the USA on the Obese-o-meter, mostly got there because of the US export of fast food outlets to any country that can afford them.
That is not what it assumes. First you assume that there is a decrease in the number of consumers, that is not true, and even if there was a price decrease will still lead to a shift in demand from those that still have jobs, which is vastly more then lost them. That extra revenue will lead to expansion and so forth..
You seem to have forgotten what the product is. If cheaper burgers means greater demand, then people become even more obese than they already are, and even more of them become unable to work.
Technology unemployment cannot be solved by ever increasing consumption.
By all means wallow in your lack of understanding.
there's just a ban on pro gun research afaik.
Well that shows how little you know.
You seem to have failed to respond to my points.Do you now accept that violent crime is a much more useful measure of the efficacy of particular legislation?
No. And my previous post told you exactly why. Nothing you said changed that.
Have you read that "study". It tries to control for so many factors it basically looks like they are obscuring the numbers and it certainly does not correlate with international numbers. I can't even find what the un-adjusted numbers they used were.
It has numbers you don't like.
Yes, the NRA was lobbying for action to stop the CDC and yes they got it. That does not by any means mean that the results of any study would have been contradictory to all the other major studies that don't seem to find any real benefit to gun control laws aside from lowering the rate of successful suicides
That is misstating the balance of the evidence out there. As I already said, the problem is that the internet is flooded with NRA and other pro-gun sites and blogs, virtually all of which distort and cherry pick. The only reason the NRA opposed the CDC doing research is that they don't like the truth. It has nothing to do with personally identifiable information. Research studies publish statistics, not names and addresses.
For example, murder is murder, but according to your hypothesis murder rates would go up with rates of gun ownership, since "being shot is clearly worse" and you don't get much worse than death. But that correlation does not happen.
Yes it does.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2007/01/6601/
Legislation was passed to stop the CDC from collecting information about this because people were concerned when the CDC started building a database of personally identifiable information on gun owners
It was the CDC, But I see no evidence for that. Indeed if it was that, they could have simply banned the collection of such personally identifiable information. The truth is the ban came about simply because of lobbying by the NRA, because they dislike data which shows gun control is a good thing.
Sure. But it's a shame for you that you didn't understand.
Books written about things like going to the moon and orbital satellites before the '60s were fiction as well.
As was Lord of the Rings.
Fiction is imagination and fantasy. Even when it's plausible it does nothing more than reflect the imagination of the author. To raise certain chosen fictions to the model of prophesy makes no more sense than astrology, reading tea-leaves, or believing Nostrodamus, or end of the world in 2012.
It's very common to think that Nineteen Eighty-Four is a prophesy that is likely to come true. Believing in astrology is also very common. They are both the actions of gullible minds.
Mein Kampf was fiction too
No, Mein Kampf was never fiction. It was exposition of an actual political ideology, using the vehicle of auto-biography.
Hello? McFly?
Indeed, believing in Back to the Future as prediction is no more ridiculous than believing in Nineteen Eighty-four.
Then it's not a FOIA request.
The guns request is.
Whether you like it or not.
Exact same arguments work for the atomic bomb in 1945.
No it wouldn't. As I already pointed out the nuclear bomb field was created in the 1940s - there was no precedent. Population and society have existed through all of history, there is plenty of precedent.
Requiring historical examples for new phenomena, be they demographical, or physical, is equally stupid.
Again, no one "required" historical examples. I asked for them to establish probability, not possibility. At that point the OP revealed that his source was a charlatan.