That's how I handle it. "Sure, I can do that,
but it will cost $X, and take Y time to complete."
If they insist on being unreasonable then move
on to a place where the managers are sane and
willing to work with others to accomplish goals.
>This entire rant (the Article itself) is basically a characterization of the "People are confused by choice. We should get rid of democracy and diversity, and have one leader, one people, and one empire
Ack!
I think you've gone way off on a tangent here.
Here's the scenario:
1. I want to set up a box to do email and run
my office, or edit video, or .
2. I don't want to use Windows. I want to use Linux.
3. I get . I try to
install it. It asks me which desk top manager
I want, along with what 8,000 other applications
I want to install.
How do I know what to install? Even if I wanted
to spend the time (and MONEY, because time is
money), where would I go to find out?
If I'd installed Windoze I could start using
my system in an hour or two.
If you want to go snow boarding you don't
start by buying a wood working shop to make
your own snow board. You go buy a board.
The author simply wants a linux that's usable
in an hour. If you want more from it that's
great, but that's something for later.
We're not confused by choice, we just want
to choose when and where we're going to spend our
time and money. Choosing between IceWm, KDE,
and Gnome isn't where I want to spend my time.
> How many times have Linus or others said that the goal for Linux is NOT to attack Microsoft's monopoly, but simply to provide a freely usable and stable UNIX-like operating system for anyone who wants it.
A couple of comments:
That's some people's goal. Other people
have different goals. They *do* get it, they just
aren't going where you, or linus, are.
I agree completely with the original author here.
My goal is to have a usable and stable operating
system. I want to use it to accomplish things. If
I can't write an app that will work next week
because it's not using the widget du jour it's
not stable and not usable.
Just read the noise generated by the sound
card with no microphone plugged in. If there's
not enough gain you could always hook a simple
noise generator to the mic input jack.
There have been many free software packages produced
by government organizations. Since they're paid
for by public funds they're public property. Look
for stuff produced by Sandia Labs, NASA, and
there's some army stuff too.
The owner of the company owns it. He hired you,
and the others, to produce it. If the owner of
the company cannot be determined or there are
debtors they can claim an interest in the software.
In short, not you. I would imagine if you express
interest in releasing it they might be willing
to restart the company or at minimum will want
a significant portion of the revenues. It might
be negotiable though. Ask them, all they can
do is destroy your dreams with crass demands
for money.
Got too much weight? Use the Adkins diet.
It worked for me. The scientists
who tried to debunk it failed.
Unfortunately it will pretty effectively
eliminate most of those beers you're
suckin down.
Dental health seems to be genetic.
I used to drink LOTS of soda and have never
had a single cavity. An aquiantance of mine
never drinks the stuff and her teeth are
rotting out of her head.
I don't believe paypal can claim innocent
misrepresentation. They have lawyers on staff
to advise them of the laws that effect them.
You on the otherhand do not. This is their
livelyhood. For them to claim a lack of knowledge
about their own business seems a bit far fetched
to me.
Part of the reason we have judges is because
we consider the circumstances as well as the law.
The case against the tobacco industry is an
example. Legally there's a disclaimer on every
pack of cigarettes. You have no real complaint
against the tobacco companies according to a
strict interpretation. You had ample warning
what would happen if you smoke. The judges
have ruled otherwise.
All you need do is convince the judge you
have a valid complaint and he can order anything
he likes, legal or not. If the opposition
disagrees they can appeal the decision. They
do have lawyers on retainer, and you don't
so it's a bit cheaper for them. If you can
make it more trouble than it's worth then
you can probably get what you want.
If they ask you to agree to the terms and conditions and you do so that doesn't make you
guilty of deception. It merely means that you were
not knowledgable that what they asked was against
the law at the time you agreed to it. Which is
not even a distortion of the truth. I would even
argue the opposite personally. Deception implies
knowledge and intent.
They KNOWINGLY asked you (they have lawyers to
advise them of these things), an unknowledgeable
individual, to agree to something that was not
legal.
"Your honor,
The basis of my case is that the defendants failed
to transfer money to my client that he was
legally entitled to. Their terms and
conditions they required are illegal and
cannot be used as a legal agreement. My client
seeks redress for wrongs done, their failure
to pay that which he is owed.
Even should the terms and conditions
be upheld as legal, my client still has a valid
complaint for which he seeks legal redress after
having exhausted all other methods. I therefore
humbly ask the judge to grant my motion to
require the defendant to make the requested
payment. We also ask for an award of all legal
costs incurred and payment at current bank
interest rates to redress my client for the loss
of use of those funds since xx-xx-xxxx."
They could make such a claim but you'd just
ask the judge to look at these screen captures
showing your 'account' status screen. That would
dispense with their claim you have no account.
I think it's a matter of showing a judge you
have a valid claim, you are entitled to make
it since they asked you to agree to something
which violates state law. They can appeal if
they want to later.
The real way to do this is to find a bunch
of people who hate them, ask for donations,
pay a lawyer in whatever state to send them
a letter naming you all as aggrevied parties.
Offer to sue if your accounts are not dealt
with within a preset time or they can face
legal action. Some good lawyers might be
willing to take the case in order to get
the publicity. Paypal will probably take
care of it since it's cheaper than the legal
action, lawyers fees, and bad publicity.
I believe you are bound to a contract that requires
you to break the law, even if you sign it. I.E.
"I hereby agree to let you kill me should I fail
to repay the loan you give me" does not allow
the other party to kill you should you default.
A contract is an agreement between two parties,
your agreement doesn't absolve anyone of their legal
responsibilities. I'm not a lawyer and I hope
one will drop by and validate my comment.
Are they any lawyers reading this?
I remember several qualifications to agreements
of this sort. They can't ask you to waive your
rights to litigation if it's illegal for them to
do so in your area. They're under no obligation
to tell you that either.
If they do any of the things you mention you
are free to file a lawsuit against them. Small
claims court is very cheap. file suit,
and make sure you mention it where the press
can pick up on it.
I search the web for reusable code regularly. There isn't a good single place to find code that I've seen, except perhaps sourceforge.
Your link is slashdotted, but it's pointed to a perl web site. I personally have been very unimpressed with perl and with the quality of programming I've seen in it. The concept of maintainability and testing seems to have been missed. You could do good code in perl but I've seen little of it.
I think this also misses the concept of reducing dependencies to increase software reliability.
Slashdot Mirror
That's how I handle it. "Sure, I can do that, but it will cost $X, and take Y time to complete." If they insist on being unreasonable then move on to a place where the managers are sane and willing to work with others to accomplish goals.
>This entire rant (the Article itself) is basically a characterization of the "People are confused by choice. We should get rid of democracy and diversity, and have one leader, one people, and one empire Ack! I think you've gone way off on a tangent here. Here's the scenario: 1. I want to set up a box to do email and run my office, or edit video, or . 2. I don't want to use Windows. I want to use Linux. 3. I get . I try to install it. It asks me which desk top manager I want, along with what 8,000 other applications I want to install. How do I know what to install? Even if I wanted to spend the time (and MONEY, because time is money), where would I go to find out? If I'd installed Windoze I could start using my system in an hour or two. If you want to go snow boarding you don't start by buying a wood working shop to make your own snow board. You go buy a board. The author simply wants a linux that's usable in an hour. If you want more from it that's great, but that's something for later. We're not confused by choice, we just want to choose when and where we're going to spend our time and money. Choosing between IceWm, KDE, and Gnome isn't where I want to spend my time.
> How many times have Linus or others said that the goal for Linux is NOT to attack Microsoft's monopoly, but simply to provide a freely usable and stable UNIX-like operating system for anyone who wants it. A couple of comments: That's some people's goal. Other people have different goals. They *do* get it, they just aren't going where you, or linus, are. I agree completely with the original author here. My goal is to have a usable and stable operating system. I want to use it to accomplish things. If I can't write an app that will work next week because it's not using the widget du jour it's not stable and not usable.
Just read the noise generated by the sound card with no microphone plugged in. If there's not enough gain you could always hook a simple noise generator to the mic input jack.
There have been many free software packages produced by government organizations. Since they're paid for by public funds they're public property. Look for stuff produced by Sandia Labs, NASA, and there's some army stuff too.
The owner of the company owns it. He hired you, and the others, to produce it. If the owner of the company cannot be determined or there are debtors they can claim an interest in the software. In short, not you. I would imagine if you express interest in releasing it they might be willing to restart the company or at minimum will want a significant portion of the revenues. It might be negotiable though. Ask them, all they can do is destroy your dreams with crass demands for money.
Got too much weight? Use the Adkins diet. It worked for me. The scientists who tried to debunk it failed. Unfortunately it will pretty effectively eliminate most of those beers you're suckin down.
Dental health seems to be genetic. I used to drink LOTS of soda and have never had a single cavity. An aquiantance of mine never drinks the stuff and her teeth are rotting out of her head.
I don't believe paypal can claim innocent misrepresentation. They have lawyers on staff to advise them of the laws that effect them. You on the otherhand do not. This is their livelyhood. For them to claim a lack of knowledge about their own business seems a bit far fetched to me. Part of the reason we have judges is because we consider the circumstances as well as the law. The case against the tobacco industry is an example. Legally there's a disclaimer on every pack of cigarettes. You have no real complaint against the tobacco companies according to a strict interpretation. You had ample warning what would happen if you smoke. The judges have ruled otherwise. All you need do is convince the judge you have a valid complaint and he can order anything he likes, legal or not. If the opposition disagrees they can appeal the decision. They do have lawyers on retainer, and you don't so it's a bit cheaper for them. If you can make it more trouble than it's worth then you can probably get what you want.
If they ask you to agree to the terms and conditions and you do so that doesn't make you guilty of deception. It merely means that you were not knowledgable that what they asked was against the law at the time you agreed to it. Which is not even a distortion of the truth. I would even argue the opposite personally. Deception implies knowledge and intent. They KNOWINGLY asked you (they have lawyers to advise them of these things), an unknowledgeable individual, to agree to something that was not legal. "Your honor, The basis of my case is that the defendants failed to transfer money to my client that he was legally entitled to. Their terms and conditions they required are illegal and cannot be used as a legal agreement. My client seeks redress for wrongs done, their failure to pay that which he is owed. Even should the terms and conditions be upheld as legal, my client still has a valid complaint for which he seeks legal redress after having exhausted all other methods. I therefore humbly ask the judge to grant my motion to require the defendant to make the requested payment. We also ask for an award of all legal costs incurred and payment at current bank interest rates to redress my client for the loss of use of those funds since xx-xx-xxxx."
They could make such a claim but you'd just ask the judge to look at these screen captures showing your 'account' status screen. That would dispense with their claim you have no account. I think it's a matter of showing a judge you have a valid claim, you are entitled to make it since they asked you to agree to something which violates state law. They can appeal if they want to later. The real way to do this is to find a bunch of people who hate them, ask for donations, pay a lawyer in whatever state to send them a letter naming you all as aggrevied parties. Offer to sue if your accounts are not dealt with within a preset time or they can face legal action. Some good lawyers might be willing to take the case in order to get the publicity. Paypal will probably take care of it since it's cheaper than the legal action, lawyers fees, and bad publicity.
I believe you are bound to a contract that requires you to break the law, even if you sign it. I.E. "I hereby agree to let you kill me should I fail to repay the loan you give me" does not allow the other party to kill you should you default. A contract is an agreement between two parties, your agreement doesn't absolve anyone of their legal responsibilities. I'm not a lawyer and I hope one will drop by and validate my comment.
Are they any lawyers reading this? I remember several qualifications to agreements of this sort. They can't ask you to waive your rights to litigation if it's illegal for them to do so in your area. They're under no obligation to tell you that either.
If they do any of the things you mention you are free to file a lawsuit against them. Small claims court is very cheap. file suit, and make sure you mention it where the press can pick up on it.
I search the web for reusable code regularly.
There isn't a good single place to find code
that I've seen, except perhaps sourceforge.
Your link is slashdotted, but it's pointed to
a perl web site. I personally have been very
unimpressed with perl and with the quality of
programming I've seen in it. The concept of
maintainability and testing seems to have been
missed. You could do good code in perl but
I've seen little of it.
I think this also misses the concept of reducing
dependencies to increase software reliability.