Often Times what you didn't sign is also law. There are plenty of laws that do not require signed contracts, such as Copyright, the law that governs software intellectual property.
The US copyright statute has the "Works for Hire" clause which covers these situations very clearly, assuming there is a definitive employer and writing software was clearly part of the employment agreement.
(b) Works Made for Hire. â" In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.
In these cases the only thing that signing a contract can do is give you some additional rights over your works as they don't belong to you by default.
As long as I'm warned that my data will be sold, why not have it available to the highest bidder?
I like this idea. Instead of companies stealing our information why don't we just sell it directly. I think I'm going to contact these data collection agencies and start setting up contracts with them.
You actually have a couple of options. You can play a little less aggressive, though as I pointed out else where I play the hell out of my kit and it works fine a year later. or you can buy a kit that will withstand the level of abuse (not meant negatively in this case) you deal upon it (which will cost $300 or more depending on the route you chose).
Did you consider that the fact that you are could actually contribute to you having better technique and thus being less hard on them?
I did consider that which is why I also pointed out that a dozen other people have used my kit with varying levels of skill, mostly non-drummers (which by the way I said I play, not to be confused with actually being a drummer). My brother is not a drummer, is well over 200lbs and has not cracked his pedal after a year either. We have been through multiple sets of sticks from aggressive play, but have not even cracked any of the pedals we use (there are at least 4 drum kits between the group I play with). One of those pedals is used regularly for drunk playing, and not by the most delicate of people.
On the other hand I have been through 3 guitars and currently have a broken Whammy bar on one of my current guitars. So yes these are plastic toys that can break, but not to a level as to be considered negligent or intentional.
The problem is that it is clearly not designed to be stamped on, just intended to be.
That's not exactly true. Breaking one of these pedals requires either a defective piece or abuse. I have had mine for over a year (launch day kit), I play heal up (far more aggressive than heal down), and I play drums for real so I'm not exactly gentle on the thing. Even after playing uncountable hours on expert level drums my pedal is still as solid as day one. This pedal has also been used by many different people ranging in age and size so it's not just that I know how to avoid breaking it.
If you read the RockBand forums you will see this same type of comment from many players. The pedals are cheap, but they are sturdy enough for price.
you are lying if you are trying to say that as a parent you've never gotten your child a toy and been glad that they are
quiet and happy (even if it is just distracted)
Sorry I believe it is my responsibility as a parent to raise my child, not allow electronic devices to do it for me. I can honestly say that I have never given my child any toy for the purpose of quieting them down. And I most certainly have never felt any pressure to purchase, or steal, a toy for my child, as the thread originally expressed.
Believe it or not but there are still people in the world that believe parenting is a process involving human interaction and not just putting their child in front of some device to entertain them until they are old enough to move out.
I have a child and I agree with the parent. If you think buying your kids silence is a good way to raise them then I feel really sorry for my child's future since they will have to deal with your dysfunctional miscreant.
Where does the gamestore come into this? I'm talking about my rights as an individual to resell what I have bought.
Here is your problem. When was the last time you purchased a software product? If you list any time in the last 20 years I suggest you check again. You have purchased the media the product came on, but the product it self is only licensed for your use. You can argue that this is not true of something you physically bought in a store, but there is no doubt that all Downloaded Content is Licensed and not purchased.
And don't try comparing to other industries. Digital Media is the only product I can think of that has an infinite number of uses. All other products wear out. Most companies charge the original purchaser for the full use of the product, so when they sell some of that potential use it makes sense to get some capital in return. I doubt you are ready to pay an infinite amount for your media, and neither is anyone else.
Right or not you have to decided what you want from the companies you support, or in your case don't support. If you chose not to support companies that produce the products you enjoy then I support you, just don't bitch about it when those products don't exist anymore.
It's people like yourself that will end the availability of Physical media and everything will end up as a limited use rental (like all the MMOs).
If you were into rhythm games you would be aware. Beyond the fact that they destroyed the Guitar Hero series by giving it over to Neversoft instead of letting it die when they decided not to continue with Harmonix, you have their active blocking of cross compatibility of hardware and their continued attempts to avoid cross compatibility even after Microsoft and Sony both demanded it for their consoles.
Add to all of that the their discontinuing of Ghostbusters, and their continued attempts to block Brutal Legend from finding a new publisher, even though they won't publish it anymore themselves.
I could go on all day with the games they have mishandled.
Not giving a rats ass about some obscure technology that does not impede your ability to enjoy a game (most DRM to most consumers) does not make you sheep. Sure I have boycotted companies for less (haven't bought an Activision product in a year and plan to miss out on Star Craft 2 because of it), but this is no reason to say that everyone that doesn't care about the same things I do are sheep.
If comes down to your experience and preference. You either don't mind "cherry picking" revisions/commits for release, or you don't mind merging.
My experience has been to target the common path rather than the exception. If you branch and merge with every change, regardless of scale, then you have to branch and merge every time you make a change and will need to resolve conflicts regularly. If you only branch for releases and use your mainline as the development line then you only have to worry about difficult branching if the unexpected happens.
Now if your developers are constantly committing broken code, or your projects are constantly being delayed, then by all means use the solutions that fits that best. I prefer to hire developers that don't commit broken code, and work with project managers that don't ask for requirements they don't actually want implemented.
And I'm not totally against branching and merging, just saying that the majority of the time it is unnecessary overhead. This also is not to say that centralized SCM is any better than distributed SCM, just saying that distributed SCM seems to be a solution looking for a problem that just doesn't exist. That being said, if I was asked to work on a project that used Git, I wouldn't demand it be converted to Subversion, and I'm not against using Git on new projects, as long as there is a good plug-in for common IDE for the language being used
Ignoring the fact that reverting changes can be a pain in the ass when multiple people are working on the same codebase.
Really? Admittedly my code is rarely ever rolled back, but when I do have to it's as easy as choosing the commits included and in that piece of code and removing them. Of course you would need an SCM that recorded changes and not point in time records.
Perhaps you should mention it to all those distributed SCM users.
I'm not against distributed SCM in anyway, but I will say that from everything I have read distributed SCM does not alleviate the need for manual conflict resolution in anyway shape or form. Now if you have even anecdotal evidence to prove that wrong I'd be happy to review it.
So that my code can become broken while another developer incrementally works on a major change?
Why do you have broken code in your working copy? And why is anyone committing code that either does not compile or does not pass your unit test suite? Continuous integration and automated testing would really be your friend in these cases.
Not to mention the case where developer X is working on some major feature, and then scheduling restrictions force the team to push said feature out, into the next release. Which is easier? Delaying the merge, or reverting all the changes?
Huh? Why revert or delay anything. Branch out only the stable code into your release branch. If you can't determine what is stable then you need to work on your tagging process and issue tracking a little more.
When I'm done, I instruct my SCM to merge from the branch back to trunk.
And this works great as long as no one else has touched any of the code that you just worked on in any of their branches that they merged before yours. The moment that happens you get the joy of resolving the conflicts wether it be manually or automated, which will happen even in a distributed SCM, and will undoubtedly lead to one change or the other requiring significant changes to resolve. Resolving conflicts from dozens of branches is not my cup of tea, so I personally avoid them.
This is a *far* more sane way to manage major changes
And that is a valid opinion, but it is just an opinion. I have been running projects for a long time without any merging issues, until I was recently forced to use this branch for everything model and seriously I have no desire to ever have to do it again.
Simple fact is, branching and merging is required for complex software development.
You are half right, branching (or tagging) is good practices for all software, regardless of complexity, but merging is only required if you branch in an overly complex way.
Branch only stable code for releases and leave the mainline as the Latest and Greatest and you never ever have to merge, ever. Which is great because branching is easy, merging sucks.
So you've never implemented something and then wished you could revert a change that didn't work out?
Are you saying your SCM doesn't let you revert/rollback without branching? Please tell me what SCM that is so I NEVER EVER EVER think about using it.
Or have never wanted to incrementally implement something without incorporating it into the final product until it was fully complete?
Since it's merging that is the problem and not branching, why would this scenario cause a problem. Branch of your release code, that should not have any significant work done on it, and do all you work in your main line, branching only stable code for the next release.
How people get anything done with their convoluted source control management totally amazes me sometimes.
I'm not going to defend Biden, or any politician for that matter, but you should know that the Biden Roosevelt comment has be covered extensively and that what Biden said is quite likely true. NY, where Roosevelt was then Governor had an actively broadcasting television station since 1927, over a year before the stock market crash in question. Biden never said "current president Roosevelt" and only mentioned that Roosevelt made a speech and that some people would have seen him make his speech on TV.
Now it's true that Biden was probably just mistaken and made a slip up as he was born when the event took place and has probably only read about Roosevelt's speeches, but that the fact still stands that he was probably right, and it's a minor mistake that his proponents like to hold on too. Mistakenly saying TV instead of Radio is nothing compared to the stupidity level that Palin has reached (just google "stupid Palin"). Biden doesn't think that New Hampshire is in the Northwest, or that Afghanistan neighbors the United States
True Palin has yet to reach Bush levels of stupid, but it won't be long, if the idiots of this country elect her as vice president.
The problem is that the "prevailing wage" is a vague term given the variety of skills and experience candidate might have for a given position.
The problem with the idea behind prevailing wage is that there is no enforcement of duties performed based on job title. So when a company once to pay people less they hire them as an Software Engineer I and have them do Software Engineer III or IV work. This allows companies to pay considerably less than a true prevailing wage. This happens to US workers as well, but at least in those cases the employee is free to move to other jobs or just quit without fear of deportation.
As someone willing to put YOUR LIFE and YOUR PASSENGERS' LIVES IN DANGER...Never be an ass on less than 4 lines (2 each direction).
Sounds like you need to take your own advise. Anyone willing to endanger the lives of others is being an ass, unless it's somehow saving more lives than endangering.
When you know what to look for, you know when it is best to coast or accelerate.
On one hand you try to bash hypermiliers, then claim to use a common hypermiling technique.
Hypermiliers are typically very conscious of the traffic patterns, which is a big reason they get the fuel economy they do. I personally average better speed and time than most travelers, I just do it without wasting energy during through breaking.
But I'll put you at ease. Where I live there are very few two lane road with a speed-limit over 25 mph, which I actually never encounter, and all freeways and non-residential surface streets are at least 6 lanes.
As a newcomer to hypermiling I have to say that this is an unfair generalization. Most of the time the only people I ever hold up are impatient people that just want to get to the next stop faster. I often watch people go flying past me just so I can coast up to them at the next light or traffic jam. Yes when I am commuting in high traffic I leave many car lengths between me and the person in front of me so that I can Pulse and Glide and Force Auto Stop. This may cost me a couple minutes of a long commute but it cuts down greatly on accidents, pollution density and natural resource dependance. All things which are good for all of us. So though you might think the guy in front of you maximizing his fuel economy is being selfish, it's more your perception than any bit of reality.
Nice governmental bailout plan, I totally support it. But you are only taking into account one year of H-1Bs and this has been happening since the H-1B program was started. So my totally random guess would be that we can make this a lot cheaper of the businesses committing fraud, maybe even as low as a few thousand per violation. If they share the fines with the recruiters, and legal firms helping to perpetuate the fraud and it should a reasonable fine. But alas, the chance of some major corporate in the US being fined for fraudulent activity is pretty slim.
You can buy the engine of a car without buying the whole car. You can also buy an Intel processor without the whole computer.
This is true, but that is merely coincidence (except in the car case where availability of replacement parts are required by law). I think you would be hard pressed to purchase a frame or body for a new car without all the bundled components. And you would also be hard pressed to purchase a Laptop computer without all the required components. And yes there are embedded chips that are not available to individual sale, only as part of their bundled products.
There are plenty of products in this world that are bundled and do not allow you to purchase the individual components.
Forcing people to buy one product in order to be able to buy another is a classroom example of an anticompetitive practice, which is banned in most civilized places
As I mentioned above, this is not entirely true. Bundling products is perfectly reasonable and accepted in every country I know of. It's a matter of how that bundling is used. For example, a Ford dealer does not have to sell you a frame or body of a car separate from the engine, even though in many cases the engine that is supplied with the car is manufactured by another manufacturer (not 100% sure about for but I know that Lotus does that). My Apple computer comes bundled with an Intel processor, which is again, considered standard and acceptable practice.
Again I am not defending Apple in this case, though I have my opinions, as I am just trying to point out that not all bundling is illegal or regulated, or even unfair.
This is not true. If the Eggs and the bread were packaged in a single bundle you could very well be forced to purchase them together. You can't go to the prepackaged salad section and chose a salad but purchase only the dressing inside. There are so many things in this world that are bundled in this fashion that it's common place.
I'm not saying that Apple is correct in this particular case, but bundling of products is perfectly reasonable.
I'm not sure I can explain how "nothing" and "nothing to lose" are different. It's just part of the English language and how different words have different meanings. But I will supply an anecdotal example from my own life.
I personally own a house, and a couple cars, and numerous other trappings of modern living. So you would think I have things to lose, but as it turns out this is not the case. If a meteor were to wipe out my house to more I would not have lost a thing, or at least nothing of value significant enough for me to care.
Sadly that doesn't make me a free person because I do have friends and family that I could lose. But that is beside the point and hopefully doesn't muddy the explanation.
So just imagine that Janis had sang "Freedom's just another word for having nothing you would be trouble by if you lost it." With that you can have all sorts of possessions and still have nothing left to lose.
Way to completely miss the point of Fight Club, Janis Joplin's lyrics and any other so called anti-consumerist statement made in this thread.
Janis Joplin sang "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose" and did not sing "Freedom's just another word for having nothing." This is an important distinction that appears to be lost of you.
Let's not forget which country has the highest standard of living, and the highest per capita income.
If by "standard of living" you mean "Human Development Index" then the highest would be Iceland, Norway, Australia, and Canada (all very socialized countries I might add). If by "per capita income" you mean "gross domestic product" then the highest would be Luxembourg, Norway, Qatar, and Iceland. For some reason I don't see the USA in any of those, and "America" is only represented by Canada in the HDI rankings (USA is 11th HDI and 12th GDP and dropping).
No one in this country needs to starve to death, and if anyone on this board were to have all of their possessions taken from them and dumped on a street corner of any town or city in the country in their underwear, the chance they'd stay at the absolute bottom of the socio-economic ladder approaches 0.
Until you are willing to actually volunteer for this experiment I suggest you keep it out of your conversations. It's like the Scientist that claims HIV is harmless and will prove it if anyone is interested in injecting him with HIV which he knows no one can legally do. Both you and the scientist might be right, but the argument is useless unless you are interesting in proving it, yourself.
I will never be a billionaire, but there's a very good chance I will go from having inherited nothing to being a millionaire by the time I die, all without ever having to fear death by starvation. If that's not enough opportunity for you, I don't know what is.
Amassing a million dollars in US capital in the course of a normally life span is hardly notable. Your million will hardly be worth 1/2 mill in current money and even less in say 1950s capital. But even without inflation it is nothing compared to the amount of capital controlled by the top 1% of capital holders in the US. Plus I'd bet you started with more than nothing, since you seem to have no clue what it actually means to have nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
The US copyright statute has the "Works for Hire" clause which covers these situations very clearly, assuming there is a definitive employer and writing software was clearly part of the employment agreement.
(b) Works Made for Hire. â" In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.
In these cases the only thing that signing a contract can do is give you some additional rights over your works as they don't belong to you by default.
As long as I'm warned that my data will be sold, why not have it available to the highest bidder?
I like this idea. Instead of companies stealing our information why don't we just sell it directly. I think I'm going to contact these data collection agencies and start setting up contracts with them.
You actually have a couple of options. You can play a little less aggressive, though as I pointed out else where I play the hell out of my kit and it works fine a year later. or you can buy a kit that will withstand the level of abuse (not meant negatively in this case) you deal upon it (which will cost $300 or more depending on the route you chose).
Did you consider that the fact that you are could actually contribute to you having better technique and thus being less hard on them?
I did consider that which is why I also pointed out that a dozen other people have used my kit with varying levels of skill, mostly non-drummers (which by the way I said I play, not to be confused with actually being a drummer). My brother is not a drummer, is well over 200lbs and has not cracked his pedal after a year either. We have been through multiple sets of sticks from aggressive play, but have not even cracked any of the pedals we use (there are at least 4 drum kits between the group I play with). One of those pedals is used regularly for drunk playing, and not by the most delicate of people.
On the other hand I have been through 3 guitars and currently have a broken Whammy bar on one of my current guitars. So yes these are plastic toys that can break, but not to a level as to be considered negligent or intentional.
The problem is that it is clearly not designed to be stamped on, just intended to be.
That's not exactly true. Breaking one of these pedals requires either a defective piece or abuse. I have had mine for over a year (launch day kit), I play heal up (far more aggressive than heal down), and I play drums for real so I'm not exactly gentle on the thing. Even after playing uncountable hours on expert level drums my pedal is still as solid as day one. This pedal has also been used by many different people ranging in age and size so it's not just that I know how to avoid breaking it.
If you read the RockBand forums you will see this same type of comment from many players. The pedals are cheap, but they are sturdy enough for price.
you are lying if you are trying to say that as a parent you've never gotten your child a toy and been glad that they are
quiet and happy (even if it is just distracted)
Sorry I believe it is my responsibility as a parent to raise my child, not allow electronic devices to do it for me. I can honestly say that I have never given my child any toy for the purpose of quieting them down. And I most certainly have never felt any pressure to purchase, or steal, a toy for my child, as the thread originally expressed.
Believe it or not but there are still people in the world that believe parenting is a process involving human interaction and not just putting their child in front of some device to entertain them until they are old enough to move out.
I have a child and I agree with the parent. If you think buying your kids silence is a good way to raise them then I feel really sorry for my child's future since they will have to deal with your dysfunctional miscreant.
Where does the gamestore come into this? I'm talking about my rights as an individual to resell what I have bought.
Here is your problem. When was the last time you purchased a software product? If you list any time in the last 20 years I suggest you check again. You have purchased the media the product came on, but the product it self is only licensed for your use. You can argue that this is not true of something you physically bought in a store, but there is no doubt that all Downloaded Content is Licensed and not purchased.
And don't try comparing to other industries. Digital Media is the only product I can think of that has an infinite number of uses. All other products wear out. Most companies charge the original purchaser for the full use of the product, so when they sell some of that potential use it makes sense to get some capital in return. I doubt you are ready to pay an infinite amount for your media, and neither is anyone else.
Right or not you have to decided what you want from the companies you support, or in your case don't support. If you chose not to support companies that produce the products you enjoy then I support you, just don't bitch about it when those products don't exist anymore.
It's people like yourself that will end the availability of Physical media and everything will end up as a limited use rental (like all the MMOs).
What's up with Activision?
If you were into rhythm games you would be aware. Beyond the fact that they destroyed the Guitar Hero series by giving it over to Neversoft instead of letting it die when they decided not to continue with Harmonix, you have their active blocking of cross compatibility of hardware and their continued attempts to avoid cross compatibility even after Microsoft and Sony both demanded it for their consoles.
Add to all of that the their discontinuing of Ghostbusters, and their continued attempts to block Brutal Legend from finding a new publisher, even though they won't publish it anymore themselves.
I could go on all day with the games they have mishandled.
Not giving a rats ass about some obscure technology that does not impede your ability to enjoy a game (most DRM to most consumers) does not make you sheep. Sure I have boycotted companies for less (haven't bought an Activision product in a year and plan to miss out on Star Craft 2 because of it), but this is no reason to say that everyone that doesn't care about the same things I do are sheep.
If comes down to your experience and preference. You either don't mind "cherry picking" revisions/commits for release, or you don't mind merging.
My experience has been to target the common path rather than the exception. If you branch and merge with every change, regardless of scale, then you have to branch and merge every time you make a change and will need to resolve conflicts regularly. If you only branch for releases and use your mainline as the development line then you only have to worry about difficult branching if the unexpected happens.
Now if your developers are constantly committing broken code, or your projects are constantly being delayed, then by all means use the solutions that fits that best. I prefer to hire developers that don't commit broken code, and work with project managers that don't ask for requirements they don't actually want implemented.
And I'm not totally against branching and merging, just saying that the majority of the time it is unnecessary overhead. This also is not to say that centralized SCM is any better than distributed SCM, just saying that distributed SCM seems to be a solution looking for a problem that just doesn't exist. That being said, if I was asked to work on a project that used Git, I wouldn't demand it be converted to Subversion, and I'm not against using Git on new projects, as long as there is a good plug-in for common IDE for the language being used
Ignoring the fact that reverting changes can be a pain in the ass when multiple people are working on the same codebase.
Really? Admittedly my code is rarely ever rolled back, but when I do have to it's as easy as choosing the commits included and in that piece of code and removing them. Of course you would need an SCM that recorded changes and not point in time records.
Perhaps you should mention it to all those distributed SCM users.
I'm not against distributed SCM in anyway, but I will say that from everything I have read distributed SCM does not alleviate the need for manual conflict resolution in anyway shape or form. Now if you have even anecdotal evidence to prove that wrong I'd be happy to review it.
So that my code can become broken while another developer incrementally works on a major change?
Why do you have broken code in your working copy? And why is anyone committing code that either does not compile or does not pass your unit test suite? Continuous integration and automated testing would really be your friend in these cases.
Not to mention the case where developer X is working on some major feature, and then scheduling restrictions force the team to push said feature out, into the next release. Which is easier? Delaying the merge, or reverting all the changes?
Huh? Why revert or delay anything. Branch out only the stable code into your release branch. If you can't determine what is stable then you need to work on your tagging process and issue tracking a little more.
When I'm done, I instruct my SCM to merge from the branch back to trunk.
And this works great as long as no one else has touched any of the code that you just worked on in any of their branches that they merged before yours. The moment that happens you get the joy of resolving the conflicts wether it be manually or automated, which will happen even in a distributed SCM, and will undoubtedly lead to one change or the other requiring significant changes to resolve. Resolving conflicts from dozens of branches is not my cup of tea, so I personally avoid them.
This is a *far* more sane way to manage major changes
And that is a valid opinion, but it is just an opinion. I have been running projects for a long time without any merging issues, until I was recently forced to use this branch for everything model and seriously I have no desire to ever have to do it again.
Simple fact is, branching and merging is required for complex software development.
You are half right, branching (or tagging) is good practices for all software, regardless of complexity, but merging is only required if you branch in an overly complex way.
Branch only stable code for releases and leave the mainline as the Latest and Greatest and you never ever have to merge, ever. Which is great because branching is easy, merging sucks.
So you've never implemented something and then wished you could revert a change that didn't work out?
Are you saying your SCM doesn't let you revert/rollback without branching? Please tell me what SCM that is so I NEVER EVER EVER think about using it.
Or have never wanted to incrementally implement something without incorporating it into the final product until it was fully complete?
Since it's merging that is the problem and not branching, why would this scenario cause a problem. Branch of your release code, that should not have any significant work done on it, and do all you work in your main line, branching only stable code for the next release.
How people get anything done with their convoluted source control management totally amazes me sometimes.
Comedians mock Sarah Palin's apparent stupidity while ignoring that Joe Biden said Americans were huddled around television sets to see President Roosevelt.
I'm not going to defend Biden, or any politician for that matter, but you should know that the Biden Roosevelt comment has be covered extensively and that what Biden said is quite likely true. NY, where Roosevelt was then Governor had an actively broadcasting television station since 1927, over a year before the stock market crash in question. Biden never said "current president Roosevelt" and only mentioned that Roosevelt made a speech and that some people would have seen him make his speech on TV.
Now it's true that Biden was probably just mistaken and made a slip up as he was born when the event took place and has probably only read about Roosevelt's speeches, but that the fact still stands that he was probably right, and it's a minor mistake that his proponents like to hold on too. Mistakenly saying TV instead of Radio is nothing compared to the stupidity level that Palin has reached (just google "stupid Palin"). Biden doesn't think that New Hampshire is in the Northwest, or that Afghanistan neighbors the United States
True Palin has yet to reach Bush levels of stupid, but it won't be long, if the idiots of this country elect her as vice president.
The problem is that the "prevailing wage" is a vague term given the variety of skills and experience candidate might have for a given position.
The problem with the idea behind prevailing wage is that there is no enforcement of duties performed based on job title. So when a company once to pay people less they hire them as an Software Engineer I and have them do Software Engineer III or IV work. This allows companies to pay considerably less than a true prevailing wage. This happens to US workers as well, but at least in those cases the employee is free to move to other jobs or just quit without fear of deportation.
As someone willing to put YOUR LIFE and YOUR PASSENGERS' LIVES IN DANGER...Never be an ass on less than 4 lines (2 each direction).
Sounds like you need to take your own advise. Anyone willing to endanger the lives of others is being an ass, unless it's somehow saving more lives than endangering.
When you know what to look for, you know when it is best to coast or accelerate.
On one hand you try to bash hypermiliers, then claim to use a common hypermiling technique.
Hypermiliers are typically very conscious of the traffic patterns, which is a big reason they get the fuel economy they do. I personally average better speed and time than most travelers, I just do it without wasting energy during through breaking.
But I'll put you at ease. Where I live there are very few two lane road with a speed-limit over 25 mph, which I actually never encounter, and all freeways and non-residential surface streets are at least 6 lanes.
As a newcomer to hypermiling I have to say that this is an unfair generalization. Most of the time the only people I ever hold up are impatient people that just want to get to the next stop faster. I often watch people go flying past me just so I can coast up to them at the next light or traffic jam. Yes when I am commuting in high traffic I leave many car lengths between me and the person in front of me so that I can Pulse and Glide and Force Auto Stop. This may cost me a couple minutes of a long commute but it cuts down greatly on accidents, pollution density and natural resource dependance. All things which are good for all of us. So though you might think the guy in front of you maximizing his fuel economy is being selfish, it's more your perception than any bit of reality.
Nice governmental bailout plan, I totally support it. But you are only taking into account one year of H-1Bs and this has been happening since the H-1B program was started. So my totally random guess would be that we can make this a lot cheaper of the businesses committing fraud, maybe even as low as a few thousand per violation. If they share the fines with the recruiters, and legal firms helping to perpetuate the fraud and it should a reasonable fine. But alas, the chance of some major corporate in the US being fined for fraudulent activity is pretty slim.
You can buy the engine of a car without buying the whole car. You can also buy an Intel processor without the whole computer.
This is true, but that is merely coincidence (except in the car case where availability of replacement parts are required by law). I think you would be hard pressed to purchase a frame or body for a new car without all the bundled components. And you would also be hard pressed to purchase a Laptop computer without all the required components. And yes there are embedded chips that are not available to individual sale, only as part of their bundled products.
There are plenty of products in this world that are bundled and do not allow you to purchase the individual components.
Forcing people to buy one product in order to be able to buy another is a classroom example of an anticompetitive practice, which is banned in most civilized places
As I mentioned above, this is not entirely true. Bundling products is perfectly reasonable and accepted in every country I know of. It's a matter of how that bundling is used. For example, a Ford dealer does not have to sell you a frame or body of a car separate from the engine, even though in many cases the engine that is supplied with the car is manufactured by another manufacturer (not 100% sure about for but I know that Lotus does that). My Apple computer comes bundled with an Intel processor, which is again, considered standard and acceptable practice.
Again I am not defending Apple in this case, though I have my opinions, as I am just trying to point out that not all bundling is illegal or regulated, or even unfair.
This is not true. If the Eggs and the bread were packaged in a single bundle you could very well be forced to purchase them together. You can't go to the prepackaged salad section and chose a salad but purchase only the dressing inside. There are so many things in this world that are bundled in this fashion that it's common place.
I'm not saying that Apple is correct in this particular case, but bundling of products is perfectly reasonable.
I'm not sure I can explain how "nothing" and "nothing to lose" are different. It's just part of the English language and how different words have different meanings. But I will supply an anecdotal example from my own life.
I personally own a house, and a couple cars, and numerous other trappings of modern living. So you would think I have things to lose, but as it turns out this is not the case. If a meteor were to wipe out my house to more I would not have lost a thing, or at least nothing of value significant enough for me to care.
Sadly that doesn't make me a free person because I do have friends and family that I could lose. But that is beside the point and hopefully doesn't muddy the explanation.
So just imagine that Janis had sang "Freedom's just another word for having nothing you would be trouble by if you lost it." With that you can have all sorts of possessions and still have nothing left to lose.
Way to completely miss the point of Fight Club, Janis Joplin's lyrics and any other so called anti-consumerist statement made in this thread.
Janis Joplin sang "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose" and did not sing "Freedom's just another word for having nothing." This is an important distinction that appears to be lost of you.
Let's not forget which country has the highest standard of living, and the highest per capita income.
If by "standard of living" you mean "Human Development Index" then the highest would be Iceland, Norway, Australia, and Canada (all very socialized countries I might add). If by "per capita income" you mean "gross domestic product" then the highest would be Luxembourg, Norway, Qatar, and Iceland. For some reason I don't see the USA in any of those, and "America" is only represented by Canada in the HDI rankings (USA is 11th HDI and 12th GDP and dropping).
No one in this country needs to starve to death, and if anyone on this board were to have all of their possessions taken from them and dumped on a street corner of any town or city in the country in their underwear, the chance they'd stay at the absolute bottom of the socio-economic ladder approaches 0.
Until you are willing to actually volunteer for this experiment I suggest you keep it out of your conversations. It's like the Scientist that claims HIV is harmless and will prove it if anyone is interested in injecting him with HIV which he knows no one can legally do. Both you and the scientist might be right, but the argument is useless unless you are interesting in proving it, yourself.
I will never be a billionaire, but there's a very good chance I will go from having inherited nothing to being a millionaire by the time I die, all without ever having to fear death by starvation. If that's not enough opportunity for you, I don't know what is.
Amassing a million dollars in US capital in the course of a normally life span is hardly notable. Your million will hardly be worth 1/2 mill in current money and even less in say 1950s capital. But even without inflation it is nothing compared to the amount of capital controlled by the top 1% of capital holders in the US. Plus I'd bet you started with more than nothing, since you seem to have no clue what it actually means to have nothing.