"After all, the US slaves did have an alternative: torture and death. It just wasn't a good alternative."
If the alternative to signing a contract is torture and death, that is not a valid contract under US law. And there is no way you can claim that this guy's alternative when he started working for MS was to be tortured and killed. Your claim that this contract "borders on slavery" remains ludicrous.
"Since this was the job he was hired to do, and which he presumably knows how to do, the effect is the same as forbidding him from working for Google completely."
Like fuck it does. Are you seriously claiming that this is the one and only job function this man can perform?
Even if you do seriously believe that, the man had already left Microsoft, thus nullifying your claim that "You are tied to one employer and one employer only in order to eat, and thus you are tied to his/her whims and conditions, whatever they may be, in order to survive.".
"Applying common sense to comprehend the consequences of what one reads opens it even further:)."
I agree, thats another thing you should think about learning after the reading lessons.
"There's new techniques all the time. I'm sure each surgery isn't exactly the same. People are different, disease among people is different. Even if heart surgeons DID do the same thing each time, why would that make the analogy flawed?"
Yes, as I noted in my post. However the general procedure from one day to the next is usually the same, a new technique isn't invented every day. You are constantly being paid to do the same thing to one patient that you did to a previous one, save their life. Compare this to research or engineering, in which you are constantly building on what was done earlier.
As to why this makes your analogy flawed, think about it. Why do these clauses in contracts for engineers and researchers exist? To keep one person from bringing the work he did for one company over to his next company. That is a problem since researchers and engineers are constantly building upon what was previously done. Thus working for one company necessarily exposes you to confidential information that your old company would need to hide from your new company in order to remain competitive.
The fact that Dr. Jones performed surgery on Mr. Smith last month isn't going to expose him to any confidential information that his old hospital is going to need to keep from his new one in order to remain confidential.
"I never said a heart surgeon knows nothing about skin."
You said, and I quote:
If you're a heart surgeon it's important to be the best at heart surgery. Increasing your skills in dermatology to avoid non-compete clauses would only take time away from knowing more about heart surgery.
This implies that heart surgeons spend all their resources learning about heart surgery and won't take the time to broaden their education on other parts of the body. That is wrong. If you want to further clarify what you meant there, by all means do so. That is what the "Reply" button is for.
"Yes, you can. The idea is that you had the choice before signing the contract, but the contract itself took it away after signing. Basically, we are talking about an employment contract that you cannot terminate and that gives a one-time payment (presumably payed to your family or kin, since you don't need money as a slave)."
Thats still quite different from slavery (as it was practiced in this country), in which someone has no choice whatsoever concerning their "career choice". Its just a really bad deal, so bad no one in their right mind would ever agree to. And as such it is nothing like what we are seeing here where people are free to leave at any time.
"The article states, in the very first paragraph, that a court ("Washington state Superior Court Judge Steven Gonzalez", to be exact) forbade this guy from working for Google for now. Perhaps youd should read the article more carefully:)."
Actually it didn't. Here is that first paragraph you were talking about:
A judge has temporarily barred a former Microsoft executive hired by Google from performing any duties at the search giant similar to those he performed at Microsoft.
He was forbade from performing a specific job function at Google for a period of 12 months.
Knowing how to read opens up a world of opportunities.
"Specialization is necessary when what you're trying to do is difficult. If you're a heart surgeon it's important to be the best at heart surgery. Increasing your skills in dermatology to avoid non-compete clauses would only take time away from knowing more about heart surgery."
Except heart surgeons are doing the same thing each time. Researchers and engineers are not, or at least that is what these contracts are designed to enforce. Thus your analogy is flawed.
And if any of you out there are thinking about becoming cardiologists, please do not take this guys advice. Doctors are required to take a broad selection of courses in med school. They need a broad understanding of biology and human anatomy in order to perform their basic job and to later adapt when the procedures change with new technology. It is certainly not the case that they know everything about the heart and nothing about the skin.
"You cannot legally/bindingly sell yourself into slavery, because there are some natural rights that are considered to be inviolable."
You can't logically sell yourself into slavery. If you had enough of a choice to sign the contract, you are not a slave. You are a contractor. Lots of people work that way. Its perfectly legal.
"I'd suggest that cases like this begin to border on slavery. You are tied to one employer and one employer only in order to eat, and thus you are tied to his/her whims and conditions, whatever they may be, in order to survive."
Where did you get that? You are free to join another company, as this guy illustrated by quitting Microsoft and joining Google. Please RTFA next time.
What laws? Laws allowing two parties to enter in a contract? There is no law prohibiting one company from hiring a former employee from another company, he signed a contract saying he wouldn't do that. Do you not understand the difference between the two?
I'd say RTFA but this is something thats generally common knowledge. Were you in such a hurry to get your post at the top of the page that you forgot to think?
Uh, the final vote was 355 to 21. Not all of those 355 congressmen who voted for it were either Republicans or Democrats hoping for a run for president in 2008. Believe it or not, this is a bipartisan issue. Democrats have a long history of political correctness and trying to be the nation's parents, in fact probably more so than Republicans. Remember which politician's wife it was that started the PMRC? I'll give you a hint, her first name was Tipper and her last rhymed with Bore.
And how does the fact that Hillary is in the Senate refute the fact that she was a driving force in the public outcry against the game which resulted in the house vote? Are you seriously claiming that Senators have no influence outside of the Senate?
What really shows the bias is the fact that sites like slashdot report this number and never mention the country the report was written in. $10 billion in Australian dollars is not $10 billion in US dollars (the currency most/.ers are most familiar with).
Add to that, I scanned through the posts already written, the only one mentioning this minor little fact was modded down for trolling.
Actually the computer with Windows XP is $349, its just on sale. Or do you think discounts should be made illegal?
And in addition, in reality nothing is free. In order to sell the PC with FreeDOS, they have to be able to support it, and most tech support reps won't work for free. So claiming there is no additional cost as a result of the FreeDOS is wrong.
I had enough trouble getting past the grammar issues with that sentence:
"Current fastest supercomputer is the partially finished Blue Gene is capable of 136.8 teaflops and the target when finished is 360 teraflops."
Seriously, what do the editors do here? They don't check the writing, they don't check the accuracy of stories, and forget about it if you want them to post a correction to something...
Yep, I noticed that too. For my neighboorhood, both were out of date, the shopping center down the street is just a dirt lot. I looked closer and it is clear they are both using the same photos, the same cars are in the parking lot and in the same positions in the street.
Then I compared the maps of my old university (Virginia Tech, in Blacksburg Virginia), and there is no comparison. MSN's is certainly old, looking at the stadium, you can tell the picture was taken long before it was expanded, and several of the newer buildings dont' exist. On Google's, it appears the end zones may have been expanded, but I can't tell for sure as I can't zoom in at all and it remains very grainy. All you can see is a little white blob over in the corner. A recent photo is useless if you can't see a damn thing.
"Again, my point is 99.99999% of all over-the-web-meds companies are not legit. They're selling overpriced placaebos. Most if not all of them only get hits through spam."
Apparently you misunderstood me. Yes, there are a lot of scams posing as legit companies out there. Yes, a lot of them advertise with spam. However, there are also plenty of legit companies in this world as well, and with this policy it would be easy for one of them to be framed as a spammer and thus be lynched by a vigilante mob. Thats why we have a formalized system of law and order in virtually every civilized country.
"
Also take note that first admendment is from the government not private citizens."
And its a good thing we have laws on the books other than the first ammendment (including laws against launching a denial of service attack on someone's website.
When did I accuse you of violating the first ammendment, anyways?
Thats fine as long as you live somewhere where nothing has changed recently. I'm not sure when those satellite pictures were taken, but when I took a look at my neighboorhood, the shopping center down the street (which was built and developed when I moved in) was still a construction site in the image.
"Well uhhh I dunno, maybe you can let the company name and actual products advertised on the site weigh in. I believe Pfizer has a better case than offshore-viagra.com."
Well after you get sued for shutting down a site because of its name, let me know how effective that policy is.
"And even if those nasty spammer renegades do this trick all the time, their own spam will still generate the response. Which brings us back to the real point, that they won't keep on if the cashflow dries out."
Ok, so now you are saying that even if they steadfastly claim they did not send out the spam, they will still suffer? Great, then my origional point stands.
Either this policy will put innocent companies at risk or will be easy to weasel out of.
So what do plan on doing? Asking each company nicely "Can you tell us if you sent us this spam so we can launch a denial of service attack on your website?" and if they respond "No, wasn't us, I swear", you just go on your daily business? I've seen smaller holes in tax exemption laws.
"To get hit, those companies would have to spam wouldn't they?"
No, you are missing the point. Say Company A sells software. Lets say that for some reason (maybe my company competes with them, maybe I'm a disgruntled former employee or customer, who knows) I don't like Company A. I can just get a spammer to send out a chain of spam emails in the name of Company A. When people receive these emails they get pissed off and launch a counter-offensive. Their website goes down, they lose business, and people lose their jobs for doing nothing wrong other than working for a company that pissed of a creative vigilante.
" I don't think you have to worry about the latter. How many legitimate penis-pill and "get rich quick" websites are there anyways?"
I don't know, but any that exist do have a right to exist. And there are plenty of legit companies that could be offering low mortgage rates or great deals on software which could easily be framed. All someone has to do fake a couple of emails and their website gets smashed.
And some junk mail may simply be an honest mistake. I had a friend once who when he got mad at you he would sign you up for all these mailing lists. Or someone might sign up for something and then forget about it. They may then interpret legitimate product announcements as spam. A legit approach to fighting spam would include safeguards to protect companies against this, but here the guy can go ahead and launch an attack on the innocent business.
"These shots -- especially the space battle scenes -- certainly make it look more worthwhile than the two prior episodes."
When the first one came out, everyone was so excited. People were camped in front of movie theaters for months, and you could easily get the impression that this was going to be one of the best movies of all time.
Then they saw Jar-Jar and the rest is history.
When the second one came out, people were once again excited. Yeah, they remembered how horrible the first one was, but this new Star Wars promised to be much better! Less Jar-Jar, a new Anakin, and an improved storyline.
Then everyone realized that while it might be better than the first one, that isn't saying much.
Now they release a few pretty pictures from the third one and once again, you have people saying it "look(s) more worthwhile". Sigh. Hey look, someone wrote the word gullible on the movie theater ceiling!
I think you are missing the point. The biggest advantage of genetic engineered food isn't that we have more to give to Kim Jong Il so that he can not give it to North Korean citizens, but rather we can create food that can be grown is less hospitable conditions or that can make up for vitamin deficiencies common in certain areas.
Instead of making people more dependent on aide (and thus on the dictator ruling their country), this will make them more independent and able to produce enough food themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
If the alternative to signing a contract is torture and death, that is not a valid contract under US law. And there is no way you can claim that this guy's alternative when he started working for MS was to be tortured and killed. Your claim that this contract "borders on slavery" remains ludicrous.
"Since this was the job he was hired to do, and which he presumably knows how to do, the effect is the same as forbidding him from working for Google completely."
Like fuck it does. Are you seriously claiming that this is the one and only job function this man can perform?
Even if you do seriously believe that, the man had already left Microsoft, thus nullifying your claim that "You are tied to one employer and one employer only in order to eat, and thus you are tied to his/her whims and conditions, whatever they may be, in order to survive.".
"Applying common sense to comprehend the consequences of what one reads opens it even further :)."
I agree, thats another thing you should think about learning after the reading lessons.
Yes, as I noted in my post. However the general procedure from one day to the next is usually the same, a new technique isn't invented every day. You are constantly being paid to do the same thing to one patient that you did to a previous one, save their life. Compare this to research or engineering, in which you are constantly building on what was done earlier.
As to why this makes your analogy flawed, think about it. Why do these clauses in contracts for engineers and researchers exist? To keep one person from bringing the work he did for one company over to his next company. That is a problem since researchers and engineers are constantly building upon what was previously done. Thus working for one company necessarily exposes you to confidential information that your old company would need to hide from your new company in order to remain competitive.
The fact that Dr. Jones performed surgery on Mr. Smith last month isn't going to expose him to any confidential information that his old hospital is going to need to keep from his new one in order to remain confidential.
"I never said a heart surgeon knows nothing about skin."
You said, and I quote:
This implies that heart surgeons spend all their resources learning about heart surgery and won't take the time to broaden their education on other parts of the body. That is wrong. If you want to further clarify what you meant there, by all means do so. That is what the "Reply" button is for.
Thats still quite different from slavery (as it was practiced in this country), in which someone has no choice whatsoever concerning their "career choice". Its just a really bad deal, so bad no one in their right mind would ever agree to. And as such it is nothing like what we are seeing here where people are free to leave at any time.
"The article states, in the very first paragraph, that a court ("Washington state Superior Court Judge Steven Gonzalez", to be exact) forbade this guy from working for Google for now. Perhaps youd should read the article more carefully :)."
Actually it didn't. Here is that first paragraph you were talking about:
He was forbade from performing a specific job function at Google for a period of 12 months.
Knowing how to read opens up a world of opportunities.
Except heart surgeons are doing the same thing each time. Researchers and engineers are not, or at least that is what these contracts are designed to enforce. Thus your analogy is flawed.
And if any of you out there are thinking about becoming cardiologists, please do not take this guys advice. Doctors are required to take a broad selection of courses in med school. They need a broad understanding of biology and human anatomy in order to perform their basic job and to later adapt when the procedures change with new technology. It is certainly not the case that they know everything about the heart and nothing about the skin.
You can't logically sell yourself into slavery. If you had enough of a choice to sign the contract, you are not a slave. You are a contractor. Lots of people work that way. Its perfectly legal.
"I'd suggest that cases like this begin to border on slavery. You are tied to one employer and one employer only in order to eat, and thus you are tied to his/her whims and conditions, whatever they may be, in order to survive."
Where did you get that? You are free to join another company, as this guy illustrated by quitting Microsoft and joining Google. Please RTFA next time.
I'd say RTFA but this is something thats generally common knowledge. Were you in such a hurry to get your post at the top of the page that you forgot to think?
And how does the fact that Hillary is in the Senate refute the fact that she was a driving force in the public outcry against the game which resulted in the house vote? Are you seriously claiming that Senators have no influence outside of the Senate?
A USB drive is worth $1.31739 in Australia? Wow, thats cheap...
Add to that, I scanned through the posts already written, the only one mentioning this minor little fact was modded down for trolling.
And in addition, in reality nothing is free. In order to sell the PC with FreeDOS, they have to be able to support it, and most tech support reps won't work for free. So claiming there is no additional cost as a result of the FreeDOS is wrong.
Seriously, what do the editors do here? They don't check the writing, they don't check the accuracy of stories, and forget about it if you want them to post a correction to something...
Then I compared the maps of my old university (Virginia Tech, in Blacksburg Virginia), and there is no comparison. MSN's is certainly old, looking at the stadium, you can tell the picture was taken long before it was expanded, and several of the newer buildings dont' exist. On Google's, it appears the end zones may have been expanded, but I can't tell for sure as I can't zoom in at all and it remains very grainy. All you can see is a little white blob over in the corner. A recent photo is useless if you can't see a damn thing.
Maybe the head of Google Maps is a UVA fan...
I am curious to know what this obsession of yours concerning penis pills is though...
Apparently you misunderstood me. Yes, there are a lot of scams posing as legit companies out there. Yes, a lot of them advertise with spam. However, there are also plenty of legit companies in this world as well, and with this policy it would be easy for one of them to be framed as a spammer and thus be lynched by a vigilante mob. Thats why we have a formalized system of law and order in virtually every civilized country.
" Also take note that first admendment is from the government not private citizens."
And its a good thing we have laws on the books other than the first ammendment (including laws against launching a denial of service attack on someone's website.
When did I accuse you of violating the first ammendment, anyways?
Thats fine as long as you live somewhere where nothing has changed recently. I'm not sure when those satellite pictures were taken, but when I took a look at my neighboorhood, the shopping center down the street (which was built and developed when I moved in) was still a construction site in the image.
Well after you get sued for shutting down a site because of its name, let me know how effective that policy is.
"And even if those nasty spammer renegades do this trick all the time, their own spam will still generate the response. Which brings us back to the real point, that they won't keep on if the cashflow dries out."
Ok, so now you are saying that even if they steadfastly claim they did not send out the spam, they will still suffer? Great, then my origional point stands.
Either this policy will put innocent companies at risk or will be easy to weasel out of.
So what do plan on doing? Asking each company nicely "Can you tell us if you sent us this spam so we can launch a denial of service attack on your website?" and if they respond "No, wasn't us, I swear", you just go on your daily business? I've seen smaller holes in tax exemption laws.
Normally the problem is that its hard to track down the law breakers, but when you own a company who advertises a service that is illegal vigilantism.
No, you are missing the point. Say Company A sells software. Lets say that for some reason (maybe my company competes with them, maybe I'm a disgruntled former employee or customer, who knows) I don't like Company A. I can just get a spammer to send out a chain of spam emails in the name of Company A. When people receive these emails they get pissed off and launch a counter-offensive. Their website goes down, they lose business, and people lose their jobs for doing nothing wrong other than working for a company that pissed of a creative vigilante.
I don't know, but any that exist do have a right to exist. And there are plenty of legit companies that could be offering low mortgage rates or great deals on software which could easily be framed. All someone has to do fake a couple of emails and their website gets smashed.
And some junk mail may simply be an honest mistake. I had a friend once who when he got mad at you he would sign you up for all these mailing lists. Or someone might sign up for something and then forget about it. They may then interpret legitimate product announcements as spam. A legit approach to fighting spam would include safeguards to protect companies against this, but here the guy can go ahead and launch an attack on the innocent business.
Does this mean other features such as LAUNCHcast will be ported over as well?
Yahoo has been around much longer than Google, as has their browser toolbar. So if anyone is copying anyone, its Google.
When the first one came out, everyone was so excited. People were camped in front of movie theaters for months, and you could easily get the impression that this was going to be one of the best movies of all time.
Then they saw Jar-Jar and the rest is history.
When the second one came out, people were once again excited. Yeah, they remembered how horrible the first one was, but this new Star Wars promised to be much better! Less Jar-Jar, a new Anakin, and an improved storyline.
Then everyone realized that while it might be better than the first one, that isn't saying much.
Now they release a few pretty pictures from the third one and once again, you have people saying it "look(s) more worthwhile". Sigh. Hey look, someone wrote the word gullible on the movie theater ceiling!
You will probably die of a heart attack before you even get cancer.
Instead of making people more dependent on aide (and thus on the dictator ruling their country), this will make them more independent and able to produce enough food themselves.