I'm not sure it's about being able to buy Xboxs as much as have health insurance, reasonable hours, reasonable working conditions, vacation and sick time, stuff like that.
Ok, I understand we need to protect old people. But why is Medicaid the vehicle for doing so? That makes no sense to me. Personally I think we should offer police as a taxi service for the eldery. At least then cops would have an actual purpose.
Oh, I also find pepper spray not very effective against someone who's pointing a gun at me. Just saying.
Really? What's my return on investment? How much would it cost me if I didn't fund public education? Why don't I get more say in how the child is raise OUTSIDE of school, to ensure my investment is being handled properly? You know, make sure that the kid is actually doing homework, and eating right. I think it's time I take control of your kid's diet, since that can have an effect on learning: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/46811.php
You spout your nonsense as if there's no debate, yet I've seen not one of you theives back up your arguemnts with solid facts. You just keep bleating "educated people benefit everyone!"
And we can have educated people without public education. But please, live in your fantasy otherwise if it makes you feel better.
I went to school, my parents ALREADY PAID. And they paid more, because I spent half of my schooling in a catholic school. I see no obligation for ME to pay for your kids. Public education has failed; let parents really decide how much an education is worth by making them bare the full cost. If people need help, I have no problem with low interest government education loans like we have for college (and I still am paying off).
Sorry, but civilization will not end because we stop funding public schools, or many of the other wasteful things our taxes fund.
So I thought the father and drone were the same... the AC was still implying that it was the customer's fault, when even his script shows exactly what DOES happen when you call support; you get people that may not even understand English asking you the same question over and over, when you've answered it. My point stands; even in the ACs sample script, the drone should have clarified what he was looking for further.
Monkeying with the key metrics -- like "unemployment" (ignoring those no longer actively seeking work)
Huh? Are you claiming we should count housewives as unemployed? Being unemployed is only a problem for those that would otherwise work.. but there are plenty of people that AREN'T going to be working. How exactly does including those people help us figure out how much untapped talent we have?
What difference does that make? An adult WAS involved. The fact that she didn't know show was being manipulated by an adult doesn't change the fact that an adult drove her to make the decision she made.
Well part of your point was that a "strong adult influence" drove her to commit suicide, and that an adult's influnce has more impact than another her own age.
The question is whether convincing a minor to commit homicide/suicide is legally murder. The question is how the law functions not how the human body functions, and the law sees little distinction between a 3 year old and a 13 year old.
First, that would be a flaw in the law that doesn't reconize the difference between a three year old and 13 year old. Second, you're largely wrong. Children as young as 10 have been tried as adults before. So the law seems to be reconizing that yes, certain minors DO have the capablity to reconize right from wrong.
The question before us here is how the law functions, specifically the law in effect today. If she was 15 and the law recognized 14 year olds as an adult, I would agree with you, that this isn't legally murder.
Yes, and the law is that she didn't commit murder, and the girl's death was ruled a suicide. You're the one that wants to twist the law around so that the woman IS found guilty of murder, not me.
Your very own metaphor states you were 'pushed' near that same brink. Pushed by external forces no doubt. If they could "push" you to the brink, why exactly can't they "push" you over the brink? What magical line exists at the brink that only you can choose to cross it, but not be pushed across it?
Because they weren't physically doing anything, and while they did make me pretty miserable, there was a limit to what they could do mentally. At the end of the day, it was MY choice not to let them win. It's pretty stupid to think that you can really control someone mentally like that. You can't. My real life experience is not a metaphor either. I have serious doubts about your ability to comphend law and why we shouldn't just arbitrary force a law which is not applicable when you can't handle simple English.
And that's -you- whose to say that if they pushed somone else the same amount, someone else, might go over the brink where you only got near it. People develop at different rates mentally and emotionally and not all people are as strong. This kid in particular was being treated for depression. And from what I've heard, Lori Drew KNEW this.
Yet none of that means she murdered the girl. Please, read the legal definition of murder and suicide. The woman, while mean to the teen, didn't physically do anything to cause her death. Yet you argue that we should be the law to "get her." That's not rule of law. There are larger things at play than making sure everyone guilty of a crime is punished. Sometimes it's better to let the guilty go than, for example, punish someone that is innocent, or give police and government too much power.
Your average 13 year old yeah, if Mom just asked, I'd agree they say no, that's wrong. But then look at how many 13-15 year olds endure sexual abuse at the hands of a parent and keep it bottled up. You seem to have no appreciation for what a child will do for a parent, or the amount of influence a parent exerts.
I doubt you're speaking for any kind of experience. My wife was a victim of sexual abuse by her parents. Her and her siblings have hate, not love, for their parents. If in the past they keep things bottled up, it's out of shame, not because of any loyality to thier parents.
And actually, if the average mother went out of her way to influence and wear down (over a period of months) her 13 year old into killing someone/herself, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they had a high success rate.
I would be; I don't think you really know what you're talking about her and haven't read up on the issue at all. I suggest you do.
If that's how your father handles things, HE'S A TOTAL IDIOT. If XP is not enough, he should then ask "what service pack level?" If he still doesn't get the answer he wants, he should walk the customer though finding the right answer.
Oh, but it's YOUR dad, and he's NEVER wrong is he? He couldn't possibly be a mindless moron either, it MUST be the customer? Please, stop being a retarded appologists. If your sample conversation is how your father deals with customers, IT'S HIS FAULT THEY GET PISSED, because he's either stupid or not trained properly.
That would probably make you feel better, but a lot of these drones are restricted in what they're allowed to do and they're forced to go through standard scripts and procedures.
Not my problem. Maybe they should work for a company that doesn't have such asinine policies.
I'm sure that the supervisor appreciated some random asshole telling him how to do his job and manage his staff.
Oh? The customer is the asshole when he's getting poor customer service and morons that tell him to do exactly what he's already done? Of course I'm sure the supervisior also doesn't care when the unhappy customer relays his store to other potentinal customes... which will eventually lead Dell right out of business. Their service is so poor I no longer buy from them, and I let everyone know to avoid them as well. So ya, maybe the supervisior should care what the customer is saying.
Bingo. Customer support is expensive, and usually carried out by a third party who have a vested interested in "processing" you as quickly as possible, regardless of whether or not it solves your problem.
There might be some stupid and/or lazy staff, but the fundamental problem is at the top.
Ya, so what? That's a reason to put up with shit service? Honestly, what vested intrest do I have in NOT treating them like the pieces of shit they are. It's also part of their job to relay just how pissed off the policies "from the top" are making their customers.
Thanks for the source on the flour-throwing thing. I can't say I see flour-throwing as a particularly heinous or fanatical action, but you're right that it was endorsed by PETA.
Ah, well I guess assault is ok if you use flour. Maybe it would still be ok if they gave them paper cuts too. How about deeper cuts? The fact is no person has a right to throw anything at another person, unless in defense of self or others.
When you say PETA endorses and funds a concept, what you're really saying is that they express a particular point of view (namely that violence against animals should be resisted by any means necessary). I'm sure you disagree with it strongly, but expressing a viewpoint is a lot different than doing violence, isn't it? Do you really want to make the claim that endorsing a disagreeable philosophy is the same as violence? That reminds me too much of the War on Terror.
Hey, stupid, THEY ARE ACTIVELY ENGAGING IN VIOLENCE. And by funding it I mean they give money to people they KNOW will use it to hurt others or destroy property. That's beyond expressing a viewpoint.
Linux wasn't implemented by someone that quit working for a UNIX company, to form there own company building and selling a functionally identical product, after having signed a contract stating that they wouldn't compete in exchange for access to the UNIX internals.
Windows NT was though. MS hired DEC engineers that built VMS. Why did you purposefully ignore that?
You've obviously never operated a business.
Hmm, well my LLC would seem to disagree with you.
Your ability to open a business most definitely affects your bargaining power, and that's the basis for fairness. If you have the resources to be able to compete with the company you are going to work for, you have the resources to not be locked into an unfair contract.
Right, because everything is static, nobody changes. Oh, and likely the people involved were hired at different times. This is a team of people, they don't have the same bargaining power individually. You act as if it takes a lot of resources too... this is software, all you need is a computer.
They're not denied the write to work in their chosen profession (software programming), they're denied their right to work in their chosen profession competing directly against the company that they are leaving, using information that they learned while employed at that company.
There you go with this nonsense argument again. I guess once I work for a health care software company, I should never be able to work for another one again. I should not be denied employment anywhere, and knowledge I learn makes me valuable. It's part of my compensation when I work for a company.
Say I have a million dollars, and I want to start a widget manufacturing company. I decide that the first thing I should do is take a job, and sign a non-compete, at a future competitor, to learn exactly how they manufacture widgets, everything they're doing right, and everything they're doing wrong. If I quit and start manufacturing my own widgets using the information I learned from them, they're well within their rights to put a stop to it.
Actually they are not. There are PLENTY of cases where this happens, except the people involved didn't start with a million dollars. They started in their field and learned, and left to start their own company.
Honestly, why should this be illegal? Why shouldn't we be allowing competition? It sounds like if you had you're way, you'd wipe the memory of every employee that quits.
The issue really isn't with the non-compete, as much as it is with the NDA. At the very least, the other company can and will bleed them until they give up.
Ahh, well at least you see you've lost the non-compete argument. What exactly are they not supposed to disclose? I also didn't recall anything in the original question that mentioned NDA at all. Pull at straws are we? The fact is, they aren't disclosing anything about their former employer and how they operate. They simply are going to build a program which functionally is similar (like Unix vs. Linux), but done with much higher quality.
A minor isn't automatically responsible for the choices they make, especially when they are under the strong influence of an adult.
Do you know anything about this case? She didn't know another adult was involved. There goes your "strong influence of an adult." An sorry, I don't care. At some point you're old enough to make decisions about yourself. There's not a magic trick that happens when one turns 18 that makes them suddenly well thought out and responsible.
If a 3 year old puts a gun to her own head and pulls the trigger because mommy said to, how is that not murder?
No one is talking about a three year old in this case, so this point is totally irrelevant.
A 13-15 year old is generally expected to have better judgement, and be responsible for MORE of what they do, but legally they really aren't different from 3 year olds. With a 3 year old we would probably all agree, that they aren't responsible for their choice... with a 13-15 year old, given the circumstances, deciding that she isn't responsible for her choice is entirely reasonable.
Yes, well, the human body doesn't function according to law does it? I would argue that you become "self-aware" earlier than 13, as 10 year olds are expected to know they shouldn't be punching someone out of malice. The fact that the law fails to recognize how humans develop is a flaw in the law. 13 and 15 year olds are no where near as stupid as "adults" pretend they are. Remember, there was a time with 14 year olds were on their own starting families. Clearly, much of our opinion of what children can handle is societal, but does not represent reality.
And if we determine that she isn't legally responsible for her choice, then WHO is responsible for this choice that led to a death?
You assume the decision of who is legally responsible is correct. I argue it is not. She may lack experience, but she does know death is irreversible. As one who has been tormented and also pushed near that same brink, I understand what its like. I also chose not to follow through.
If we can agree that mommy is responsible for getting her 3 year old girl to kill daddy or herself , and that mommy should be charged with murder in either case.
Except that I'm sure you'd agree that a 13 year old, even when instructed by her mother to do so, would be responsible enough to know not to listen, and that if she did, she should be tried for murder as well.
Then assigning Lori Drew the responsibility for this poor kids choice to end her own life, is equivalently murder.
Let's not; she was old enough and responsible enough to make her own choices. You're still trivializing murder.
All that means is that the law is wrong. Goading someone into killing themselves is murder.
No, it's not. Said person always had a choice to live; a murder victum does not get that choice. You're trivializing murder.
I have no idea why you brought up anarchy. I am advocating that we change our Justice system to actually mete out justice. That doesn't sound like anarchy to me.
Twisting laws to "get the bad guy" is anarchy. The laws are supposed to be specific. If we allow your line of thinking, any law can be twisted to convict anyone of anything. It's also inconsitent, since the same situation might come up and not be tried at all, or be tried by twisting around another law. That sounds pretty choatic to me.
It is not justice to allow a murderer to go free. Technicalities are not justice.
See.. your arguing based on your emotion, not law. You're redefining murder to suit your own ends, and then calling THAT justice.
In your world, pushing someone off a cliff is OK because you didn't kill them. After all, is it your fault they hit the ground?
Yes, because you caused them to fall by pushing them. Name calling is not at all like pushing someone off a cliff. Get a grip.
It's not "domain knowledge". They want to duplicate their employers applications using "lessons learned" while working on the employers application (trade secrets), to compete against their employer. It's not just the same industry, it's the same application. There is no way in hell a non-compete wouldn't be upheld.
What utter nonsense. It's not duplicating the application, its building an applicaton with the same functionality. By your standards, Linux should be illegal because it "duplicates" UNIX. Windows NT should be illegal because it "duplicates" VMS. Also, I'm getting the suspicion you need to read up on the definition of "trade secret," because you're using it much too broadly.
You'll notice that the words are different and have different meanings, they're hardly contradictory. Presumably if you have the wherewithal to start a business and compete against your employer, you had the wherewithal to negotiate the contract with your employer, ergo the agreement is neither unfair or unconscionable.
Again, nonsense. Anyone can start a business, and your ability to do so has nothing to do with whether or not a non-compete is unfair or unconscionable. Denying one a right to work in their chosen profession usually is looked upon as unconscionable, especially when you're not being paid to sit out. And yes, giving employers that much power is exteremly unfair. Workers rights were codified for a reason; because employers routinely abused their power.
You missed the most important word in that sentence.
Go read what you wrote; you said in a blanket statement individuals can't be held to them. "What the submitter doesn't know is that while non-competes are generally unenforceable for individuals in the state of California" You go on to contradict yourself (they can't start their own company but can work for a competitor? Honestly, what's the difference, except that starting their own company is a great risk?)
Show me where the Ask said they shared "trade secrets?" It sounds to me like they see that they could better serve customers, but building a redesigned application which has good quality code, but how it is put together is fundamently different.
Gaining "domain knowledge" about an industry is irrelevent. As a software developer, ANY company which writes software for healthcare (for example) I'll be able to learn the domain while employed there. Indeed, I'd argue that domain knowledge is part of my compensation. It's not unique to any one company, and I could have learned it almost anywhere. It's called "experience" and it's what makes up a good chunk of my value.
You said yourself that non-competes can only be a B2B thing. The new company would be a legal entity, not bound by any contracts because nobody signed any yet. The individuals did.. but you've already claimed it can't be enforced against them.
If I can't be personally held liable for the debt of my corporation, what makes you think my corporation "inherits" contracts I've signed?
you sign a non-compete clause you should be respecting it rather than trying to find a loophole in it.
Hilarious! Honestly, why? What does the OP get out of "respecting it?" You don't find it morally wrong to say "sign this NC or you won't be employed?" Where is the company's morals when they need to do layoffs? Please, that's just gargage. Treat companies as they treat you; like shit.
You've been paid to do a job, and whilst still in that job and are still accepting your company's paycheck you have developed in your minds what you think is a version 2.0 of their product.
And as soon as he quits he's not being paid, so why should he continue to "respect" the NC?
3) Get the ok from your boss before you leave to join a software start up that your friend started. Mention to him that they dont have any product yet but it is a software company. Ask him if that makes it in conflict with the non-compete that you signed when started.
No, absolutely not. This will invaribly cause your boss to come after you, and it's none of their business what you do after you leave. Under NO circumstances should you ever revel your plans to your soon to be former employer... EVER.
You might be right.. except that the company they left never signed anything with the company they would form. It'd be imposible.. since their company would have been formed after they left.
What ever happened to personal responsiblity? They can run Vista, just not with Aero. Why is it shadey to expect people to actually do some research before making a large purchase? There's never been honesty in advertising. Have you seen the Lysol commercials? "Disinfect to protect." Except that doing so makes you sicker in the long run.. why aren't you calling them out? Their advertising actually leads to poorer public health. This Vista issue just means you may not be able to use ONE feature of the new OS.. if you want to clean up advertising, there are much more important things than what MS did.
Sorry, I missed the part in the article you linked to where PETA claimed responsibility for flour being thrown on that person's fur coat. Just because somebody did something mean in connection with animal rights doesn't mean PETA did it.
Oh, sorry for not connecting all the dots for you. I guess I made the mistake in thinking you could properly interperate what is written.
Also, ALF is not an organization, it's a banner or concept. Sort of like "open source". It's not possible for PETA or anyone else to fund the ALF, because there's no institution to give the money to.
Its a concept endourced and funded by PETA. Perhaps you need to do some research of your own.
I hoped you would take the time to learn about those you disagree with before leveling criticisms...the way you're doing it makes you look just as rabid and ideological as PETA.
This is a really odd statement to make, given that I mostly agree with them, although I have no problem using animials for food. I really think you should stop and examine PETA more closely, because you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Their goals are mostly admirable, the way they go about them are horrid and in some cases illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure it's about being able to buy Xboxs as much as have health insurance, reasonable hours, reasonable working conditions, vacation and sick time, stuff like that.
Ok, I understand we need to protect old people. But why is Medicaid the vehicle for doing so? That makes no sense to me. Personally I think we should offer police as a taxi service for the eldery. At least then cops would have an actual purpose.
Oh, I also find pepper spray not very effective against someone who's pointing a gun at me. Just saying.
I don't think sp2 will fix these issues. A 3 mb file copy is still as long as a 300mb file copy in xp for me.
So you'd rather a lie that the file copy is fast over the truth that the file has actually copied?
Ultimately, customers are not hurt (except for downtime because of an unplanned link outage).
Hmm...
Ultimately, customers are not hurt (except when they are hurt).
Also, isn't the "downtime" still on-going?
There's no such thing as an illegal monopoly... only abuse of monopoly status.
PLUS, as a tax funded institution, no content should be allowed without the prior approval of the parents.
Surely ALL taxpayers should have a say, as a tax fund instutition?
All people benefit from an educated society.
Really? What's my return on investment? How much would it cost me if I didn't fund public education? Why don't I get more say in how the child is raise OUTSIDE of school, to ensure my investment is being handled properly? You know, make sure that the kid is actually doing homework, and eating right. I think it's time I take control of your kid's diet, since that can have an effect on learning: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/46811.php
You spout your nonsense as if there's no debate, yet I've seen not one of you theives back up your arguemnts with solid facts. You just keep bleating "educated people benefit everyone!"
And we can have educated people without public education. But please, live in your fantasy otherwise if it makes you feel better.
I went to school, my parents ALREADY PAID. And they paid more, because I spent half of my schooling in a catholic school. I see no obligation for ME to pay for your kids. Public education has failed; let parents really decide how much an education is worth by making them bare the full cost. If people need help, I have no problem with low interest government education loans like we have for college (and I still am paying off).
Sorry, but civilization will not end because we stop funding public schools, or many of the other wasteful things our taxes fund.
So I thought the father and drone were the same... the AC was still implying that it was the customer's fault, when even his script shows exactly what DOES happen when you call support; you get people that may not even understand English asking you the same question over and over, when you've answered it. My point stands; even in the ACs sample script, the drone should have clarified what he was looking for further.
Monkeying with the key metrics -- like "unemployment" (ignoring those no longer actively seeking work)
Huh? Are you claiming we should count housewives as unemployed? Being unemployed is only a problem for those that would otherwise work.. but there are plenty of people that AREN'T going to be working. How exactly does including those people help us figure out how much untapped talent we have?
What difference does that make? An adult WAS involved. The fact that she didn't know show was being manipulated by an adult doesn't change the fact that an adult drove her to make the decision she made.
Well part of your point was that a "strong adult influence" drove her to commit suicide, and that an adult's influnce has more impact than another her own age.
The question is whether convincing a minor to commit homicide/suicide is legally murder. The question is how the law functions not how the human body functions, and the law sees little distinction between a 3 year old and a 13 year old.
First, that would be a flaw in the law that doesn't reconize the difference between a three year old and 13 year old. Second, you're largely wrong. Children as young as 10 have been tried as adults before. So the law seems to be reconizing that yes, certain minors DO have the capablity to reconize right from wrong.
The question before us here is how the law functions, specifically the law in effect today. If she was 15 and the law recognized 14 year olds as an adult, I would agree with you, that this isn't legally murder.
Yes, and the law is that she didn't commit murder, and the girl's death was ruled a suicide. You're the one that wants to twist the law around so that the woman IS found guilty of murder, not me.
Your very own metaphor states you were 'pushed' near that same brink. Pushed by external forces no doubt. If they could "push" you to the brink, why exactly can't they "push" you over the brink? What magical line exists at the brink that only you can choose to cross it, but not be pushed across it?
Because they weren't physically doing anything, and while they did make me pretty miserable, there was a limit to what they could do mentally. At the end of the day, it was MY choice not to let them win. It's pretty stupid to think that you can really control someone mentally like that. You can't. My real life experience is not a metaphor either. I have serious doubts about your ability to comphend law and why we shouldn't just arbitrary force a law which is not applicable when you can't handle simple English.
And that's -you- whose to say that if they pushed somone else the same amount, someone else, might go over the brink where you only got near it. People develop at different rates mentally and emotionally and not all people are as strong. This kid in particular was being treated for depression. And from what I've heard, Lori Drew KNEW this.
Yet none of that means she murdered the girl. Please, read the legal definition of murder and suicide. The woman, while mean to the teen, didn't physically do anything to cause her death. Yet you argue that we should be the law to "get her." That's not rule of law. There are larger things at play than making sure everyone guilty of a crime is punished. Sometimes it's better to let the guilty go than, for example, punish someone that is innocent, or give police and government too much power.
Your average 13 year old yeah, if Mom just asked, I'd agree they say no, that's wrong. But then look at how many 13-15 year olds endure sexual abuse at the hands of a parent and keep it bottled up. You seem to have no appreciation for what a child will do for a parent, or the amount of influence a parent exerts.
I doubt you're speaking for any kind of experience. My wife was a victim of sexual abuse by her parents. Her and her siblings have hate, not love, for their parents. If in the past they keep things bottled up, it's out of shame, not because of any loyality to thier parents.
And actually, if the average mother went out of her way to influence and wear down (over a period of months) her 13 year old into killing someone/herself, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they had a high success rate.
I would be; I don't think you really know what you're talking about her and haven't read up on the issue at all. I suggest you do.
Lori Drew didn't ju
If that's how your father handles things, HE'S A TOTAL IDIOT. If XP is not enough, he should then ask "what service pack level?" If he still doesn't get the answer he wants, he should walk the customer though finding the right answer.
Oh, but it's YOUR dad, and he's NEVER wrong is he? He couldn't possibly be a mindless moron either, it MUST be the customer? Please, stop being a retarded appologists. If your sample conversation is how your father deals with customers, IT'S HIS FAULT THEY GET PISSED, because he's either stupid or not trained properly.
That would probably make you feel better, but a lot of these drones are restricted in what they're allowed to do and they're forced to go through standard scripts and procedures.
Not my problem. Maybe they should work for a company that doesn't have such asinine policies.
I'm sure that the supervisor appreciated some random asshole telling him how to do his job and manage his staff.
Oh? The customer is the asshole when he's getting poor customer service and morons that tell him to do exactly what he's already done? Of course I'm sure the supervisior also doesn't care when the unhappy customer relays his store to other potentinal customes... which will eventually lead Dell right out of business. Their service is so poor I no longer buy from them, and I let everyone know to avoid them as well. So ya, maybe the supervisior should care what the customer is saying.
Bingo. Customer support is expensive, and usually carried out by a third party who have a vested interested in "processing" you as quickly as possible, regardless of whether or not it solves your problem.
There might be some stupid and/or lazy staff, but the fundamental problem is at the top.
Ya, so what? That's a reason to put up with shit service? Honestly, what vested intrest do I have in NOT treating them like the pieces of shit they are. It's also part of their job to relay just how pissed off the policies "from the top" are making their customers.
Thanks for the source on the flour-throwing thing. I can't say I see flour-throwing as a particularly heinous or fanatical action, but you're right that it was endorsed by PETA.
Ah, well I guess assault is ok if you use flour. Maybe it would still be ok if they gave them paper cuts too. How about deeper cuts? The fact is no person has a right to throw anything at another person, unless in defense of self or others.
When you say PETA endorses and funds a concept, what you're really saying is that they express a particular point of view (namely that violence against animals should be resisted by any means necessary). I'm sure you disagree with it strongly, but expressing a viewpoint is a lot different than doing violence, isn't it? Do you really want to make the claim that endorsing a disagreeable philosophy is the same as violence? That reminds me too much of the War on Terror.
Hey, stupid, THEY ARE ACTIVELY ENGAGING IN VIOLENCE. And by funding it I mean they give money to people they KNOW will use it to hurt others or destroy property. That's beyond expressing a viewpoint.
Linux wasn't implemented by someone that quit working for a UNIX company, to form there own company building and selling a functionally identical product, after having signed a contract stating that they wouldn't compete in exchange for access to the UNIX internals.
Windows NT was though. MS hired DEC engineers that built VMS. Why did you purposefully ignore that?
You've obviously never operated a business.
Hmm, well my LLC would seem to disagree with you.
Your ability to open a business most definitely affects your bargaining power, and that's the basis for fairness. If you have the resources to be able to compete with the company you are going to work for, you have the resources to not be locked into an unfair contract.
Right, because everything is static, nobody changes. Oh, and likely the people involved were hired at different times. This is a team of people, they don't have the same bargaining power individually. You act as if it takes a lot of resources too... this is software, all you need is a computer.
They're not denied the write to work in their chosen profession (software programming), they're denied their right to work in their chosen profession competing directly against the company that they are leaving, using information that they learned while employed at that company.
There you go with this nonsense argument again. I guess once I work for a health care software company, I should never be able to work for another one again. I should not be denied employment anywhere, and knowledge I learn makes me valuable. It's part of my compensation when I work for a company.
Say I have a million dollars, and I want to start a widget manufacturing company. I decide that the first thing I should do is take a job, and sign a non-compete, at a future competitor, to learn exactly how they manufacture widgets, everything they're doing right, and everything they're doing wrong. If I quit and start manufacturing my own widgets using the information I learned from them, they're well within their rights to put a stop to it.
Actually they are not. There are PLENTY of cases where this happens, except the people involved didn't start with a million dollars. They started in their field and learned, and left to start their own company.
Honestly, why should this be illegal? Why shouldn't we be allowing competition? It sounds like if you had you're way, you'd wipe the memory of every employee that quits.
The issue really isn't with the non-compete, as much as it is with the NDA. At the very least, the other company can and will bleed them until they give up.
Ahh, well at least you see you've lost the non-compete argument. What exactly are they not supposed to disclose? I also didn't recall anything in the original question that mentioned NDA at all. Pull at straws are we? The fact is, they aren't disclosing anything about their former employer and how they operate. They simply are going to build a program which functionally is similar (like Unix vs. Linux), but done with much higher quality.
A minor isn't automatically responsible for the choices they make, especially when they are under the strong influence of an adult.
Do you know anything about this case? She didn't know another adult was involved. There goes your "strong influence of an adult." An sorry, I don't care. At some point you're old enough to make decisions about yourself. There's not a magic trick that happens when one turns 18 that makes them suddenly well thought out and responsible.
If a 3 year old puts a gun to her own head and pulls the trigger because mommy said to, how is that not murder?
No one is talking about a three year old in this case, so this point is totally irrelevant.
A 13-15 year old is generally expected to have better judgement, and be responsible for MORE of what they do, but legally they really aren't different from 3 year olds. With a 3 year old we would probably all agree, that they aren't responsible for their choice... with a 13-15 year old, given the circumstances, deciding that she isn't responsible for her choice is entirely reasonable.
Yes, well, the human body doesn't function according to law does it? I would argue that you become "self-aware" earlier than 13, as 10 year olds are expected to know they shouldn't be punching someone out of malice. The fact that the law fails to recognize how humans develop is a flaw in the law. 13 and 15 year olds are no where near as stupid as "adults" pretend they are. Remember, there was a time with 14 year olds were on their own starting families. Clearly, much of our opinion of what children can handle is societal, but does not represent reality.
And if we determine that she isn't legally responsible for her choice, then WHO is responsible for this choice that led to a death?
You assume the decision of who is legally responsible is correct. I argue it is not. She may lack experience, but she does know death is irreversible. As one who has been tormented and also pushed near that same brink, I understand what its like. I also chose not to follow through.
If we can agree that mommy is responsible for getting her 3 year old girl to kill daddy or herself , and that mommy should be charged with murder in either case.
Except that I'm sure you'd agree that a 13 year old, even when instructed by her mother to do so, would be responsible enough to know not to listen, and that if she did, she should be tried for murder as well.
Then assigning Lori Drew the responsibility for this poor kids choice to end her own life, is equivalently murder.
Let's not; she was old enough and responsible enough to make her own choices. You're still trivializing murder.
All that means is that the law is wrong. Goading someone into killing themselves is murder.
No, it's not. Said person always had a choice to live; a murder victum does not get that choice. You're trivializing murder.
I have no idea why you brought up anarchy. I am advocating that we change our Justice system to actually mete out justice. That doesn't sound like anarchy to me.
Twisting laws to "get the bad guy" is anarchy. The laws are supposed to be specific. If we allow your line of thinking, any law can be twisted to convict anyone of anything. It's also inconsitent, since the same situation might come up and not be tried at all, or be tried by twisting around another law. That sounds pretty choatic to me.
It is not justice to allow a murderer to go free. Technicalities are not justice.
See.. your arguing based on your emotion, not law. You're redefining murder to suit your own ends, and then calling THAT justice.
In your world, pushing someone off a cliff is OK because you didn't kill them. After all, is it your fault they hit the ground?
Yes, because you caused them to fall by pushing them. Name calling is not at all like pushing someone off a cliff. Get a grip.
It's not "domain knowledge". They want to duplicate their employers applications using "lessons learned" while working on the employers application (trade secrets), to compete against their employer. It's not just the same industry, it's the same application. There is no way in hell a non-compete wouldn't be upheld.
What utter nonsense. It's not duplicating the application, its building an applicaton with the same functionality. By your standards, Linux should be illegal because it "duplicates" UNIX. Windows NT should be illegal because it "duplicates" VMS. Also, I'm getting the suspicion you need to read up on the definition of "trade secret," because you're using it much too broadly.
You'll notice that the words are different and have different meanings, they're hardly contradictory. Presumably if you have the wherewithal to start a business and compete against your employer, you had the wherewithal to negotiate the contract with your employer, ergo the agreement is neither unfair or unconscionable.
Again, nonsense. Anyone can start a business, and your ability to do so has nothing to do with whether or not a non-compete is unfair or unconscionable. Denying one a right to work in their chosen profession usually is looked upon as unconscionable, especially when you're not being paid to sit out. And yes, giving employers that much power is exteremly unfair. Workers rights were codified for a reason; because employers routinely abused their power.
You missed the most important word in that sentence.
No, I didn't. There's nothing special about the question that would lead me to believe this case is different. At any rate, the law in CA is here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/bpc/16600-16607.html
Please, point out the section I'm missing that would allow this non-compete in CA.
Go read what you wrote; you said in a blanket statement individuals can't be held to them. "What the submitter doesn't know is that while non-competes are generally unenforceable for individuals in the state of California" You go on to contradict yourself (they can't start their own company but can work for a competitor? Honestly, what's the difference, except that starting their own company is a great risk?)
Show me where the Ask said they shared "trade secrets?" It sounds to me like they see that they could better serve customers, but building a redesigned application which has good quality code, but how it is put together is fundamently different.
Gaining "domain knowledge" about an industry is irrelevent. As a software developer, ANY company which writes software for healthcare (for example) I'll be able to learn the domain while employed there. Indeed, I'd argue that domain knowledge is part of my compensation. It's not unique to any one company, and I could have learned it almost anywhere. It's called "experience" and it's what makes up a good chunk of my value.
You said yourself that non-competes can only be a B2B thing. The new company would be a legal entity, not bound by any contracts because nobody signed any yet. The individuals did.. but you've already claimed it can't be enforced against them.
If I can't be personally held liable for the debt of my corporation, what makes you think my corporation "inherits" contracts I've signed?
you sign a non-compete clause you should be respecting it rather than trying to find a loophole in it.
Hilarious! Honestly, why? What does the OP get out of "respecting it?" You don't find it morally wrong to say "sign this NC or you won't be employed?" Where is the company's morals when they need to do layoffs? Please, that's just gargage. Treat companies as they treat you; like shit.
You've been paid to do a job, and whilst still in that job and are still accepting your company's paycheck you have developed in your minds what you think is a version 2.0 of their product.
And as soon as he quits he's not being paid, so why should he continue to "respect" the NC?
3) Get the ok from your boss before you leave to join a software start up that your friend started. Mention to him that they dont have any product yet but it is a software company. Ask him if that makes it in conflict with the non-compete that you signed when started.
No, absolutely not. This will invaribly cause your boss to come after you, and it's none of their business what you do after you leave. Under NO circumstances should you ever revel your plans to your soon to be former employer... EVER.
You might be right.. except that the company they left never signed anything with the company they would form. It'd be imposible.. since their company would have been formed after they left.
What ever happened to personal responsiblity? They can run Vista, just not with Aero. Why is it shadey to expect people to actually do some research before making a large purchase? There's never been honesty in advertising. Have you seen the Lysol commercials? "Disinfect to protect." Except that doing so makes you sicker in the long run.. why aren't you calling them out? Their advertising actually leads to poorer public health. This Vista issue just means you may not be able to use ONE feature of the new OS.. if you want to clean up advertising, there are much more important things than what MS did.
Sorry, I missed the part in the article you linked to where PETA claimed responsibility for flour being thrown on that person's fur coat. Just because somebody did something mean in connection with animal rights doesn't mean PETA did it.
Oh, sorry for not connecting all the dots for you. I guess I made the mistake in thinking you could properly interperate what is written.
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,26278,24663580-7485,00.html
Also, ALF is not an organization, it's a banner or concept. Sort of like "open source". It's not possible for PETA or anyone else to fund the ALF, because there's no institution to give the money to.
Its a concept endourced and funded by PETA. Perhaps you need to do some research of your own.
I hoped you would take the time to learn about those you disagree with before leveling criticisms...the way you're doing it makes you look just as rabid and ideological as PETA.
This is a really odd statement to make, given that I mostly agree with them, although I have no problem using animials for food. I really think you should stop and examine PETA more closely, because you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Their goals are mostly admirable, the way they go about them are horrid and in some cases illegal.