unless you have something wrong with you that makes you have a likely outcome of getting sick very often there is no way that you would need more than 5 weeks for vacation for a year and sick leave. Most places give you 3 weeks of vacation and 1 or 2 weeks of sick leave. I was more on the line of administratively it makes sense , no need to have a separate "sick leave" code or anything. Its just all thrown into the same bucket.
We get 5 weeks of vacation per year(not counting holidays). We can use it how we need to. I have had this my last 2 employers now and it makes sense. Whether you want to take off for Christmas, goof off or if you get the flu, to the company its all the same.
If you are software development shop there isnt much need for teleconferencing or webcams. thats what IM is for. And if you absolutely have to have a one on one with a team member then use skype or something. I am on a mobile dev team and we sit almost next to each other and we still use IM. everything from subversion updates to where we want to go to lunch. You could find a great developer such as myself, offer me a bit more money because you dont have to spend resources on business things(electricity, space for me to sit or meal perks to offer). Heck ill even use my personal computer to do the work, so you dont have to even buy me that.
And when i mean offer me more money i mean more as in less than what you would pay someone who lives in NYC because living in Florida is WAYY less expensive to live in but enough to make me happy as I can stay where I am, dont have to move away from family, can enjoy my 300+ days of sunshine, beaches, etc and can continue to not pay state taxes.
I am competent in OOP fundamentals...C++, Java, Objective-C, OpenGL/ES(currently focusing on iOS/Cocoa development) but I am not willing to relocate to NYC from Florida for TONS of reasons. Do you allow people to work from home? Maybe you arent looking for my skills but if you are and you are serious about finding good developers then maybe you would allow telecommute. Just thought i would throw that out there.
what are they going to do next? disallow Wi-Fi so i cant store my stuff on other devices via my own wireless network? Just because you dont have a storage slot get on a wireless network and do what you want.
lets talk about what isnt clear to you then? what is so vague that it isnt apparent what the founding fathers meant? I am sure a lot of us can think of privacy being a main issue. Obviously they could not account for technological advances that would dictate an update the constitution to provide citizens the right to privacy, regardless of any technological advances. I agree with that. But judges or the supreme court shouldnt be the ones to interpret the constitution and apply that law to this current day and age to make a ruling about some privacy issue. As someone said below, we should be exercising our power as citizens of the United States to bug the hell out of our representatives in Congress so that 2/3 of the house and senate will vote to amend the constitution and that after that 3/4 of the states approve it in a bill before going into law. If your congressman or local state representative gets in the way of that or doesnt agree with the people on this then vote them out of office and put someone in who shares and will act upon the views of his or her constituency. Thats how it is supposed to work.
but judges are supposed to rule as the the current constitution states. It is NOT their job to say, "well this part of the constitution doesnt make sense now so lets make a ruling to interpret it that makes sense in this day and age". I repeat that is NOT their job. They are to rule on current law and constitutional basis - not to change or modify that basis based on their own personal interpretation. They are to rule on a law as is. Period. If you want them to rule on a law make a ruling on a constitutional problem then CHANGE THE LAW BY RATIFYING THE CONSTITUTION that reflects the day and age. Surely if 200 years later it is acceptable by most for X and Y because A and B really dont apply to this day and age then it shouldnt be any problem getts 2/3 of the house and senate and 3/4 of the states to sign off on the change. But this is not any judges job - even the supreme courts job, which are supposed to make a ruling on current statutes. Not make up their own interpretations and make rulings on those interpretations.
NO - if courts and legislators can interpret it to mean anything they want then thats a dangerous precedent. They can justify, change any law, new or old and that was not want the founders wanted. Currently if you want to change the constitution it requires 2/3 vote in both house and senate then 3/4 of the states must accept the bill before actually changing the constitution. What you are implying is that they would be ok with any court or single person in congress having the power of their own persuasion and personal conviction to arbitrarily make a ruling because of his own interpretation. Pretty soon every judge has their own interpretation and as you might imagine this can lead to overwhelming chaos.
I firmly believe that the founding fathers intended for the constitution to be "as is". Black and White. It means what it says and trying to conjure up a ruling because times change a little bit doesn't give any court the right or power to use a personal interpretation to make a ruling. Why do I believe this? Well they also gave the power to add, remove, amend the constitution through a very lengthy process. This tells me that changing the constitution in any way was very important and it was not meant to be arbitrarily changed at a whim or misinterpreted by someones prejudice. Think about it - technically any judge on any court can say , "well i interpret this to mean that so I am ruling X". That gives too much power to judges and I think most of us here understand that the founders didn't want this..
If you go to stack exchange , google and the ustpo have gotten together so that 3rd party members and others can invalidate patents in crowdsourcing effort and look at other patents that have not yet been accepted. I have tried to submit this story twice now and was declined. Check out patents.stackexchange. If you think that certain patents should be invalidated then state your prior art and work with those that can help you research. By the way I have tried to start a thread on there about blizzard being sued by worlds inc.
My thread that i started got some great feedback. It involves the patents revolves around Worlds Inc suing Blizzard. I was advised that I might want to focus on one of the four patents in questions and go with that then move on others, even though most all of the four patents are inter-related.(IMO). I need some help gathering information regarding any patent that you want to start on. send me an email/pm on stack exchange if you are interested.
my point exactly. so people that buy a kindle wasn;t going to shop at walmart/target anyway. might as well sell the kindles and hope they pick up a pack of batteries, some bread and milk while they are in the store. but thats just my logic. ??
not that i don't believe you but can i get a link to the "no new enclosed mall has been built in a decade" bit? I am putting together a blog that talks about "the takeover of machines". ty
but people that want to buy ebooks from Amazon will buy from amazon. making it easier with a kindle doesn't mean people won't buy eBooks because it takes actually going to amazon.com and buying the book.
"Wal-Mart continues to sell iPads, Barnes & Noble Inc's Nook, Google Inc's Nexus 7, Samsung's Galaxy Tab and other tablets and eReaders"
So people cant use iPads to go shop at like say "amazon.com"(wow who would have thought?) and other websites to find the best deal on ebooks to everything else under the sun?
Of course this only makes sense if you take the "amazon is our competitor" line.
also the license for Android development is $25. One time. not every year. So there is some incentive then lets say $99 per year(and even an extra $99 for a separate mac osx license)
then they should have said, "hey i know that we have these rules but these guys helped us out so we are going to give them a one time pass" "Charlie next time please work with us if you have a security hole and we will even give you a temporary account to play around with things to confirm or not future security holes".
Wouldnt that have been the 'right thing' to do??
Slashdot Mirror
i should also add that if you are sick but not deadly sick you can stay and work from home. So thats a nice little bone they throw us.
unless you have something wrong with you that makes you have a likely outcome of getting sick very often there is no way that you would need more than 5 weeks for vacation for a year and sick leave. Most places give you 3 weeks of vacation and 1 or 2 weeks of sick leave. I was more on the line of administratively it makes sense , no need to have a separate "sick leave" code or anything. Its just all thrown into the same bucket.
We get 5 weeks of vacation per year(not counting holidays). We can use it how we need to. I have had this my last 2 employers now and it makes sense. Whether you want to take off for Christmas, goof off or if you get the flu, to the company its all the same.
What problems have you had with subversion? we are moving to git but ive never had any issues with SVN, at least in Eclipse.
If you are software development shop there isnt much need for teleconferencing or webcams. thats what IM is for. And if you absolutely have to have a one on one with a team member then use skype or something. I am on a mobile dev team and we sit almost next to each other and we still use IM. everything from subversion updates to where we want to go to lunch. You could find a great developer such as myself, offer me a bit more money because you dont have to spend resources on business things(electricity, space for me to sit or meal perks to offer). Heck ill even use my personal computer to do the work, so you dont have to even buy me that.
And when i mean offer me more money i mean more as in less than what you would pay someone who lives in NYC because living in Florida is WAYY less expensive to live in but enough to make me happy as I can stay where I am, dont have to move away from family, can enjoy my 300+ days of sunshine, beaches, etc and can continue to not pay state taxes.
I am competent in OOP fundamentals...C++, Java, Objective-C, OpenGL/ES(currently focusing on iOS/Cocoa development) but I am not willing to relocate to NYC from Florida for TONS of reasons. Do you allow people to work from home? Maybe you arent looking for my skills but if you are and you are serious about finding good developers then maybe you would allow telecommute. Just thought i would throw that out there.
hello from Hattiesburg, MS.. since im down in your part of the country - be sure to invite me to your gumbo party.
NASA/Stennis Space Center, Mississippi. Used to be in the top 10. they have fallen way behind.
what are they going to do next? disallow Wi-Fi so i cant store my stuff on other devices via my own wireless network? Just because you dont have a storage slot get on a wireless network and do what you want.
lets talk about what isnt clear to you then? what is so vague that it isnt apparent what the founding fathers meant? I am sure a lot of us can think of privacy being a main issue. Obviously they could not account for technological advances that would dictate an update the constitution to provide citizens the right to privacy, regardless of any technological advances. I agree with that. But judges or the supreme court shouldnt be the ones to interpret the constitution and apply that law to this current day and age to make a ruling about some privacy issue. As someone said below, we should be exercising our power as citizens of the United States to bug the hell out of our representatives in Congress so that 2/3 of the house and senate will vote to amend the constitution and that after that 3/4 of the states approve it in a bill before going into law. If your congressman or local state representative gets in the way of that or doesnt agree with the people on this then vote them out of office and put someone in who shares and will act upon the views of his or her constituency. Thats how it is supposed to work.
but judges are supposed to rule as the the current constitution states. It is NOT their job to say, "well this part of the constitution doesnt make sense now so lets make a ruling to interpret it that makes sense in this day and age". I repeat that is NOT their job. They are to rule on current law and constitutional basis - not to change or modify that basis based on their own personal interpretation. They are to rule on a law as is. Period. If you want them to rule on a law make a ruling on a constitutional problem then CHANGE THE LAW BY RATIFYING THE CONSTITUTION that reflects the day and age. Surely if 200 years later it is acceptable by most for X and Y because A and B really dont apply to this day and age then it shouldnt be any problem getts 2/3 of the house and senate and 3/4 of the states to sign off on the change. But this is not any judges job - even the supreme courts job, which are supposed to make a ruling on current statutes. Not make up their own interpretations and make rulings on those interpretations.
NO - if courts and legislators can interpret it to mean anything they want then thats a dangerous precedent. They can justify, change any law, new or old and that was not want the founders wanted. Currently if you want to change the constitution it requires 2/3 vote in both house and senate then 3/4 of the states must accept the bill before actually changing the constitution. What you are implying is that they would be ok with any court or single person in congress having the power of their own persuasion and personal conviction to arbitrarily make a ruling because of his own interpretation. Pretty soon every judge has their own interpretation and as you might imagine this can lead to overwhelming chaos.
everyone jsut stop buying hondas and watch the tides turn.
I firmly believe that the founding fathers intended for the constitution to be "as is". Black and White. It means what it says and trying to conjure up a ruling because times change a little bit doesn't give any court the right or power to use a personal interpretation to make a ruling. Why do I believe this? Well they also gave the power to add, remove, amend the constitution through a very lengthy process. This tells me that changing the constitution in any way was very important and it was not meant to be arbitrarily changed at a whim or misinterpreted by someones prejudice. Think about it - technically any judge on any court can say , "well i interpret this to mean that so I am ruling X". That gives too much power to judges and I think most of us here understand that the founders didn't want this..
If you go to stack exchange , google and the ustpo have gotten together so that 3rd party members and others can invalidate patents in crowdsourcing effort and look at other patents that have not yet been accepted. I have tried to submit this story twice now and was declined. Check out patents.stackexchange. If you think that certain patents should be invalidated then state your prior art and work with those that can help you research. By the way I have tried to start a thread on there about blizzard being sued by worlds inc.
I have submitted this story twice and got rejected TWICE. Unbelievable. Google, the USTPO and stack exchange have gotten together and created patents.stackexchange.com - a chance to work with others (included those that are more familiar with patent law) to search out current patents already filed or vet out new patents on the horizon.
My thread that i started got some great feedback. It involves the patents revolves around Worlds Inc suing Blizzard. I was advised that I might want to focus on one of the four patents in questions and go with that then move on others, even though most all of the four patents are inter-related.(IMO). I need some help gathering information regarding any patent that you want to start on. send me an email/pm on stack exchange if you are interested.
this was the the top speed , still unverified however. watch the press conference stats. He went faster than 730 MPH.
a white collar or pound me in the a$$ prison?
my point exactly. so people that buy a kindle wasn;t going to shop at walmart/target anyway. might as well sell the kindles and hope they pick up a pack of batteries, some bread and milk while they are in the store. but thats just my logic. ??
not that i don't believe you but can i get a link to the "no new enclosed mall has been built in a decade" bit? I am putting together a blog that talks about "the takeover of machines". ty
but people that want to buy ebooks from Amazon will buy from amazon. making it easier with a kindle doesn't mean people won't buy eBooks because it takes actually going to amazon.com and buying the book.
"Wal-Mart continues to sell iPads, Barnes & Noble Inc's Nook, Google Inc's Nexus 7, Samsung's Galaxy Tab and other tablets and eReaders"
So people cant use iPads to go shop at like say "amazon.com"(wow who would have thought?) and other websites to find the best deal on ebooks to everything else under the sun?
Of course this only makes sense if you take the "amazon is our competitor" line.
also the license for Android development is $25. One time. not every year. So there is some incentive then lets say $99 per year(and even an extra $99 for a separate mac osx license)
then they should have said, "hey i know that we have these rules but these guys helped us out so we are going to give them a one time pass" "Charlie next time please work with us if you have a security hole and we will even give you a temporary account to play around with things to confirm or not future security holes". Wouldnt that have been the 'right thing' to do??
well Charlie did get banned from the app store for 1 year for finding a security hole. Perhaps they dont hate him but they got pretty miffed at him.