THIS. They're somewhat better in JS - at least there's an RE literal syntax, but I think it only supports a restricted set of functionality compared to perl (no control of backtracking, etc).
People do complain about that, all the time - just not generally native English speakers. Likewise, it's not a complaint you usually see coming out of thedamian or chromatic;-)
I totally agree with you that the "build quality" thing is bunk - I've had my Mac laptop in the shop fully as often as any laptop my friends have had.
On the other hand, I do have to say that the trackpad is amazing. Multi-touch seemed like a poor substitute for buttons to me until I tried it, but I honestly find it difficult to go back to using regular trackpads. I even find the multi-touch trackpad slightly better for some interactions than mousing - specifically, for scrolling.
Which means most people have no idea about politics or basic human decency, but have a pretty high likelihood of understanding "the internet" as a concept;-)
Using a popular misconception intentionally when one knows better only makes sense if you're engaged in training or dialogue with someone who holds the misconception, and the misconception is tangential to the discussion. It's not remotely helpful to do so in a dialogue centered on the subject of the misconception, with people who largely don't hold the misconception.
Also, in addition to what others have pointed out - the argument that it could have been created privately in doesn't change the fact that it was created publicly - as were many of the foundations of modern computing that were necessary for the private institutions mentioned to even exist. Additionally, note that research grants and government contracts weren't rare in the history of any of those institutions.
I mostly agree here, except for your "people didn't have rights until 200 years ago." The debate on what were rights of citizens goes back beyond classical times. Most societies in human history have concepts of rights and duties.
That being said, the whole "we can't do anything, it's human nature" argument has always been a crock, and I'm really glad to see someone else fighting it.
Also, is hypocrisy somehow worse than repressive totalitarianism now? Given that you're right about the US's saying one thing and doing another, the shit we're doing is still comparatively damn minor compared to jailing people for protesting online.
People always pull that out: "At least I'm not a hypocrite!" Well, some things are worse than hypocrisy, so that's not a "get out of responsibility for your actions, free" card.
Note that "the shit we're doing is minor" is meant to be limited to online censorship activities - there's plenty of non-minor shit the U.S. is doing wrong.
That does largely clear it up, although, once again, I don't have a horse in this fight - I don't have enough background on how Valve is doing this transaction or the statutes in question to say one way or another how a court would rule it. I personally think that, while it's not something that's motivated by bad impulses, it would have to be very carefully limited in order to not be abusive or anti-competitive, assuming that Valve actually opens new markets based on having the translations, and that Valve owns the translations. Those are, of course, assumptions.
I originally had a point-by-point engagement of the listed factors here, but if you re-read them in context of the preceding paragraph, carefully, with an eye for structure, I think you'll find that the correct reading (or at least a valid reading) is that these factors are applied in cases where the work in question is already determined to be for a qualifying entity. They aren't exceptions to the rule of "it has to be non-profit, humanitarian, religious, or public," they're criteria to be applied even to non-profits, churches, etc., to prevent entities that qualify for volunteer labor from abusing the privilege.
That being said, if Valve is just providing a space and mechanism for fan-provided translations, no, they're not going to violate the FLSA, because, as you point out, it's basically just a mod.
Further, since everyone is caught up in the notion that this applies to religious organizations and that they are the only ones exempt, it might also behoove you to read that specific part:
You don't mention non-profit or public sector here. If this wasn't an attempt to assert that I was saying that only religious organizations were exempt, I'm not sure what you were getting at.
I didn't gloss over your post - I read it carefully and it failed to effectively convince me of your point. Your blockquotes, in particular, don't actually constitute any sort of rebuttal to the statements I made, and you didn't explain why FLSA doesn't apply in this case. If you'd care to make that clear, I'll be glad to read it, but honestly, all you did was make an unfair claim about my comment and fail to back it up.
"Is not intended to stamp" is far different from "doesn't ever indicate;" furthermore, there's a clearly stated list of exceptions below.
And, again - I'm not asserting that Valve is definitely in the wrong in regards to FLSA. They might well fall under an exception listed in the statute that's not listed in the summary, or they might maintain sufficient ownership of the translations, or any number of things. But the FLSA is, in fact, meant to prevent private companies from accepting volunteer labor, with some exceptions, and thus my statements above are correct.
Minimum wage means you're wrong. Simple as that. I'm sorry the world doesn't match your philosophy, but what you said here isn't true.
Because, clearly, the only place to be beaten to death by neanderthals who don't agree with your viewpoint is a bar *rolls eyes*
Not meant seriously, bar is the canonical location for roughhousing in the western world, and it doesn't take being neanderthal to be enraged by your jackass Randian twittery.
If you are unable to adapt to the world marketplace, you will be unable to provide for yourself. You can do everything right and still have your job taken by someone else. Neither is your fault, but it is what is going to happen. Get used to it.
Outsourcing and globalization are actually separate issues from allowing people to volunteer for for-profit companies.
Also, working for nothing isn't actually obeying free market principles. No one is exploding the concept of supply and demand quite as thoroughly as someone who is doing something for no material profit. They're outside the purvey of the free market at that point - and, in fact, if they're volunteering for a for-profit company, they're a competitive advantage that warps what logically should happen in a free-market system.
Also, and just to be utterly clear, because I suspect you are not reading carefully - at no point am I saying or have I said that you can't do whatever you want with your time. What I'm saying you're not permitted to do (and what you're not permitted to do by law, right now) is to donate that time to a profit-making entity, gratis. You can do it on your own time and make the results free to anyone, or you can work for a charitable organization, or certain types of religious organization, or a non-profit, or for a public agency. But you can't decide to work for free for a for profit company and stay within the bounds of law.
As a side note, I agree with the reasoning behind that law. It's a good law, as far as I'm concerned. I think it's awesome that you can't do that. But that's immaterial to any of the previous discussion, because the fact remains, that's what the law says.
The free market isn't magical, and it isn't the sole model of economic interaction in any economy. It's a model; a sometimes useful model, but a limited model which doesn't take into account vast ranges of human social and economic activity. It is also startlingly open to abuses where sensible regulation isn't imposed.
Also, I'd stop claiming that you support employee rights, since you're not even behind the right to a fair wage. Or, if you do keep claiming it, do so in a bar with people who actually HAVE to work for a living, so that you might be removed from the vote pool as soon as possible.
And, to be less tongue-in-cheek, distinguishing between free and paid labor is certainly a far cry from demanding closed shops. And, frankly, free labor is, in a great variety of ways, inimical to the free market - it's the ultimate example of someone failing to price goods and services according to supply/demand. And for the company that leverages it, it is an unfair competitive advantage operating outside the market.
So, you accuse me of cherry-picking, but fail to even read my reply closely enough to realize that I mentioned public-service and non-profit agencies as well as religious?
Good job, I guess. Except not.
I never said Valve was evil, or that corporations are bad. I quite agree that corporations are amoral, frankly, and I don't know whether the FLSA applies to this specific case. I'd imagine that it would depend highly on how the translations are bundled with the games in question.
For profit companies are not, by law, generally allowed to accept volunteer labor. The translators may see an advantage for themselves in personal terms, but I sincerely doubt that "being able to play a game in their own language" would qualify as significant compensation in a legal sense, particularly since, as translators, they are already able to play the game, by virtue of understanding the language it's written in well enough to translate it.
I know you intend this as some sort of ultra-libertarian "gotcha," but thank you. Unions did many great things, like ending company stores and putting a stop to the horrors of gilded-age child labor.
And frankly, while perhaps you have the right to charge whatever you want, maybe, employers do not have the right to pay whatever they want for labor. The minimum wage laws exist to prevent abuse of the workforce, and ensure a decent chance at self-sufficiency for all citizens. It's nice for you if you don't need the money, but you don't actually have some sort of god-given right to fuck over other people by undercutting the minimum wage.
Work doesn't stop being work because you do it off the premises - feel free to research farther, but if being in your own house meant employment law didn't apply to you, telecommuting wouldn't work.
Unpaid internships are supposed to provide some sort of compensation, in the form of directly valuable (and quantifiable) experience, training, etc. They're often abused, and are strictly delimited by law as to hours permitted and allowable types of work. In practice, again, they're often abused, but the law is fairly clear on these issues.
And just to reiterate, I'm not commenting specifically on the legal status of Valve's translation project - I haven't looked at it directly. I'm just saying that the line referenced doesn't mean what he says it means when read in context.
Look it up in context of the statute, if you want an exact definition as placed. If you find that "translation of foreign language materials" somehow magically doesn't count, I'd be very surprised. One thing to note - since the purpose of FLSA is to mark where accepting volunteer work is acceptable, clearly work can include volunteer activities, if that's what you're getting at.
But regardless of whether the game translations count as work, the first paragraph contradicts what he claims the line that he references means.
Slashdot Mirror
Methinks you'd like forbearance, actually.
THIS. They're somewhat better in JS - at least there's an RE literal syntax, but I think it only supports a restricted set of functionality compared to perl (no control of backtracking, etc).
People do complain about that, all the time - just not generally native English speakers. Likewise, it's not a complaint you usually see coming out of thedamian or chromatic ;-)
He said "best write-only language," not "write-only to the greatest degree."
I totally agree with you that the "build quality" thing is bunk - I've had my Mac laptop in the shop fully as often as any laptop my friends have had.
On the other hand, I do have to say that the trackpad is amazing. Multi-touch seemed like a poor substitute for buttons to me until I tried it, but I honestly find it difficult to go back to using regular trackpads. I even find the multi-touch trackpad slightly better for some interactions than mousing - specifically, for scrolling.
Which means most people have no idea about politics or basic human decency, but have a pretty high likelihood of understanding "the internet" as a concept ;-)
Using a popular misconception intentionally when one knows better only makes sense if you're engaged in training or dialogue with someone who holds the misconception, and the misconception is tangential to the discussion. It's not remotely helpful to do so in a dialogue centered on the subject of the misconception, with people who largely don't hold the misconception.
I see you like Neal Stephenson ;-)
This is exactly what I was trying to say. Bravo.
I apologize for reiterating what others have already said; I was reading top-to-bottom, rather than checking all replies - a bad habit.
I guess if you limit "the internet" to the WWW - but that's pretty foolish, or very disingenuous.
Also, in addition to what others have pointed out - the argument that it could have been created privately in doesn't change the fact that it was created publicly - as were many of the foundations of modern computing that were necessary for the private institutions mentioned to even exist. Additionally, note that research grants and government contracts weren't rare in the history of any of those institutions.
I mostly agree here, except for your "people didn't have rights until 200 years ago." The debate on what were rights of citizens goes back beyond classical times. Most societies in human history have concepts of rights and duties.
That being said, the whole "we can't do anything, it's human nature" argument has always been a crock, and I'm really glad to see someone else fighting it.
Also, is hypocrisy somehow worse than repressive totalitarianism now? Given that you're right about the US's saying one thing and doing another, the shit we're doing is still comparatively damn minor compared to jailing people for protesting online.
People always pull that out: "At least I'm not a hypocrite!" Well, some things are worse than hypocrisy, so that's not a "get out of responsibility for your actions, free" card.
Note that "the shit we're doing is minor" is meant to be limited to online censorship activities - there's plenty of non-minor shit the U.S. is doing wrong.
Armory planet robberies with junk freighters (from your house to the sun in three standard units, or your credits back!)?
That does largely clear it up, although, once again, I don't have a horse in this fight - I don't have enough background on how Valve is doing this transaction or the statutes in question to say one way or another how a court would rule it. I personally think that, while it's not something that's motivated by bad impulses, it would have to be very carefully limited in order to not be abusive or anti-competitive, assuming that Valve actually opens new markets based on having the translations, and that Valve owns the translations. Those are, of course, assumptions.
I originally had a point-by-point engagement of the listed factors here, but if you re-read them in context of the preceding paragraph, carefully, with an eye for structure, I think you'll find that the correct reading (or at least a valid reading) is that these factors are applied in cases where the work in question is already determined to be for a qualifying entity. They aren't exceptions to the rule of "it has to be non-profit, humanitarian, religious, or public," they're criteria to be applied even to non-profits, churches, etc., to prevent entities that qualify for volunteer labor from abusing the privilege.
That being said, if Valve is just providing a space and mechanism for fan-provided translations, no, they're not going to violate the FLSA, because, as you point out, it's basically just a mod.
You don't mention non-profit or public sector here. If this wasn't an attempt to assert that I was saying that only religious organizations were exempt, I'm not sure what you were getting at.
I didn't gloss over your post - I read it carefully and it failed to effectively convince me of your point. Your blockquotes, in particular, don't actually constitute any sort of rebuttal to the statements I made, and you didn't explain why FLSA doesn't apply in this case. If you'd care to make that clear, I'll be glad to read it, but honestly, all you did was make an unfair claim about my comment and fail to back it up.
"Is not intended to stamp" is far different from "doesn't ever indicate;" furthermore, there's a clearly stated list of exceptions below.
And, again - I'm not asserting that Valve is definitely in the wrong in regards to FLSA. They might well fall under an exception listed in the statute that's not listed in the summary, or they might maintain sufficient ownership of the translations, or any number of things. But the FLSA is, in fact, meant to prevent private companies from accepting volunteer labor, with some exceptions, and thus my statements above are correct.
Minimum wage means you're wrong. Simple as that. I'm sorry the world doesn't match your philosophy, but what you said here isn't true.
Not meant seriously, bar is the canonical location for roughhousing in the western world, and it doesn't take being neanderthal to be enraged by your jackass Randian twittery.
Outsourcing and globalization are actually separate issues from allowing people to volunteer for for-profit companies.
Also, working for nothing isn't actually obeying free market principles. No one is exploding the concept of supply and demand quite as thoroughly as someone who is doing something for no material profit. They're outside the purvey of the free market at that point - and, in fact, if they're volunteering for a for-profit company, they're a competitive advantage that warps what logically should happen in a free-market system.
Also, and just to be utterly clear, because I suspect you are not reading carefully - at no point am I saying or have I said that you can't do whatever you want with your time. What I'm saying you're not permitted to do (and what you're not permitted to do by law, right now) is to donate that time to a profit-making entity, gratis. You can do it on your own time and make the results free to anyone, or you can work for a charitable organization, or certain types of religious organization, or a non-profit, or for a public agency. But you can't decide to work for free for a for profit company and stay within the bounds of law.
As a side note, I agree with the reasoning behind that law. It's a good law, as far as I'm concerned. I think it's awesome that you can't do that. But that's immaterial to any of the previous discussion, because the fact remains, that's what the law says.
The free market isn't magical, and it isn't the sole model of economic interaction in any economy. It's a model; a sometimes useful model, but a limited model which doesn't take into account vast ranges of human social and economic activity. It is also startlingly open to abuses where sensible regulation isn't imposed.
Also, I'd stop claiming that you support employee rights, since you're not even behind the right to a fair wage. Or, if you do keep claiming it, do so in a bar with people who actually HAVE to work for a living, so that you might be removed from the vote pool as soon as possible.
The classics never go out of style.
And, to be less tongue-in-cheek, distinguishing between free and paid labor is certainly a far cry from demanding closed shops. And, frankly, free labor is, in a great variety of ways, inimical to the free market - it's the ultimate example of someone failing to price goods and services according to supply/demand. And for the company that leverages it, it is an unfair competitive advantage operating outside the market.
So, you accuse me of cherry-picking, but fail to even read my reply closely enough to realize that I mentioned public-service and non-profit agencies as well as religious?
Good job, I guess. Except not.
I never said Valve was evil, or that corporations are bad. I quite agree that corporations are amoral, frankly, and I don't know whether the FLSA applies to this specific case. I'd imagine that it would depend highly on how the translations are bundled with the games in question.
For profit companies are not, by law, generally allowed to accept volunteer labor. The translators may see an advantage for themselves in personal terms, but I sincerely doubt that "being able to play a game in their own language" would qualify as significant compensation in a legal sense, particularly since, as translators, they are already able to play the game, by virtue of understanding the language it's written in well enough to translate it.
I know you intend this as some sort of ultra-libertarian "gotcha," but thank you. Unions did many great things, like ending company stores and putting a stop to the horrors of gilded-age child labor.
And frankly, while perhaps you have the right to charge whatever you want, maybe, employers do not have the right to pay whatever they want for labor. The minimum wage laws exist to prevent abuse of the workforce, and ensure a decent chance at self-sufficiency for all citizens. It's nice for you if you don't need the money, but you don't actually have some sort of god-given right to fuck over other people by undercutting the minimum wage.
Work doesn't stop being work because you do it off the premises - feel free to research farther, but if being in your own house meant employment law didn't apply to you, telecommuting wouldn't work.
Unpaid internships are supposed to provide some sort of compensation, in the form of directly valuable (and quantifiable) experience, training, etc. They're often abused, and are strictly delimited by law as to hours permitted and allowable types of work. In practice, again, they're often abused, but the law is fairly clear on these issues.
And just to reiterate, I'm not commenting specifically on the legal status of Valve's translation project - I haven't looked at it directly. I'm just saying that the line referenced doesn't mean what he says it means when read in context.
Look it up in context of the statute, if you want an exact definition as placed. If you find that "translation of foreign language materials" somehow magically doesn't count, I'd be very surprised. One thing to note - since the purpose of FLSA is to mark where accepting volunteer work is acceptable, clearly work can include volunteer activities, if that's what you're getting at.
But regardless of whether the game translations count as work, the first paragraph contradicts what he claims the line that he references means.
But modders still own their mods. The problem is that these translations are being solicited and are directly owned by Valve.