You might think you own it, but SUPRISE, you are licensing it.
The fact you keep repeating the same wrong information doesn't make it any less wrong.
Adobe made that same claim you are making. It didn't go over well in court. It didn't go over too well for Microsoft either (Microsoft Corp. v. DAK Indus). Novell tried that argument, and got shot down too (Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc., 2000 ).
"...the Ninth Circuit held that the economic realities of the agreement indicated that it was a sale, not a license to use."
"... Like Adobe, CPU argued that it purchased the software from an authorized source, and was entitled to resell it under the first sale doctrine. Novell claimed that it did not sell software but merely licensed it to distribution partners. The court held that these transactions constituted sales and not a license, and therefore that the first sale doctrine applied. 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9975 at *18."
"...The Court finds that the circumstances surrounding the transaction strongly suggests that the transaction is in fact a sale rather than a license. For example, the purchaser commonly obtains a single copy of the software, with documentation, for a single price, which the purchaser pays at the time of the transaction, and which constitutes the entire payment for the "license." The license runs for an indefinite term without provisions for renewal. In light of these indicia, many courts and commentators conclude that a "shrinkwrap license" transaction is a sale of goods rather than a license."
"...Ownership of a copy should be determined based on the actual character, rather than the label, of the transaction by which the user obtained possession. Merely labeling a transaction as a lease or license does not control. If a transaction involves a single payment giving the buyer an unlimited period in which it has a right to possession, the transaction is a sale."
"Raymond Nimmer, The Law of Computer Technology 1.18[1] p. 1-103 (1992). The Court agrees that a single payment for a perpetual transfer of possession is, in reality, a sale of personal proper and therefore transfers ownership of that property, the copy of the software. "
So, at least in the US, a one-time payment for a perpetual use of software is a SALE, regardless of what you call it, and rightfully so. They can't change that with a EULA any more than a car dealership could claim you had a one-time lease payment, with a lifetime use period and the right to transfer the lease for free (thus avoiding legal regulations with regards to sale of vehicles). Any reasonable court would rule that such was a sale, not a lease. What you call it doesn't matter.
Which country gets to decide what is required to go there?
I just got back from spain (3GSM tradeshow) - companies openly displayed images of topless women. The same goes for their bookstores - something that wouldn't fly in the United States. On the other hand, there are a number of countries that consider "adult" violence that in the United States can be displayed at any time on public airwaves.
Besides the jurisdictional issues, you have issues with entire countries (ones that censor already) having a very easy job of removing all adult content in compliance from their country. Whether or not that is a good thing is subject to debate.
It also sets a bad precident - if the government (any government) has the right to force content to belong in certain regulated areas of the internet, it opens up the door to all kinds of abuse. How about we require all content in arabic to be on.islam, so we can more easily catch terror subjects? How about we protect the children by requiring any site that allows user generated content to be on a.adult domain, and verify government issued ID? Think of the children!
Easy filtering goes both ways - the easier it is for you to censor things for the children, the easier it is for others (government, employer, library, ISP) to filter things for you. In the case of the employer, it may be justified, but random ISPs should not be filtering without you opting in for such.
Better than Phoenix - as it never gets really cold (although there was a little snow around a week ago, go figure), it's always construction season.
When we first moved here, my mother told my father "I'll love you till construction finishes at Sky Harbor (the airport)". 14 years later, construction is still going strong. She grew up here, and it was going strong then, too.
Just because it's not stated, does not mean it is forbidden.
Actually, it is: Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The fact that the federal government has abused the commerce clause and completly disregarded most of the constitution for some time now doesn't make this particular encroachment right.
Of course, you are assuming he hadn't swapped out the CPU and HD a couple of months earlier, and that the RAM and Video Card weren't just the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back.
Well, I don't know about the parent, but I'm using a revocable virtual debit card, through XRost (a prepaid online payment card), then on to AllOfMP3. In fact, you can't provide a credit card directly to AllOfMP3 anymore (blame Visa for that).
Not those. These. (Look in the upper middle of the screen).
Most people don't seem to see them, and they typically try to make it after a bright flash (which makes them a little less visibile). Personally, they drive me nuts, but so do single projector DLPs.
Well, from other's statements, I can assume that I'm outside the norm, but here's been my "experience" with Mac ownership (typing on one of them now).
First MacBook Pro (not Core 2 Duo) - freezes, overheats (in OS X). Runs so hot it can burn me. Apple replaced with: Second MacBook Pro (not Core 2 Duo) - doesn't freeze, but it's still hot enough to cause bad burns. Hard drive started the click of death in less than a week of use. Replaced with: Third MacBook Pro (not Core 2 Duo) - currently in use. Randomly freezes during startup, rebooting always fixes it. Wifi sometimes craps out for no reason. Still hot enough to burn. Keep it because it "just works" well enough to keep me from needing to replace it, and the guy in our company using it is a good distance from an Apple store.
The other MacBook Pro (Core 2 Duo - what I'm using at the moment, while windows is reinstalling on my _real_ laptop (Clevo D900K)) was broken before it even turned on. The screen had seperated from the casing during shipment, and once opened wouldn't close unless you really jammed it shut. Took it down to the Apple store, they ordered some parts, and I got it back in a week. For some reason, swapping out the LCD required a new logic board for the system. I know better than to ask why.
I'm using the Core 2 Duo now, in Windows because for some reason, OS X will not work with the WI-FI network here. I find that particularly odd given that my cell phone and PDA work just fine (no Windows specific software). When I need to get real work done, I use VMWare and run linux. For games, I use Windows. About the only thing I use OS X for anymore is network bridging (WI-FI to whatever device I'm working on), although it seems overkill to use a $2400 PC instead of a $75 wireless bridge.
I've been told that it "just works" - my experience is that it "just works poorly". If my company didn't produce software for OS X, I'd eBay the machine and never look back.
Posted non-anonymously, because I don't have anything to hide.
You ask - "if you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?". I ask, "if I'm not doing anything wrong, why do you feel the need to spy on me?".
Avoiding the obvious issues with international law, having your activities spied upon tends to change what you do. In some cases, this is a good thing (less crime) - in some cases, it's not.
Consider someone who is aware of wrongdoing by their company/politician/etc. With the (relative) anonymity of the internet, that person can go online and expose the wrongdoing. Even with laws protecting whistleblowers from retribution, companies (and in some cases, politicians) have a history of making their lives unpleasant anyway. What keeps people from arbitrarily running smear campaigns? With sufficient evidence to convince a judge of wrongdoing by the purported "whistleblower", injunctions and subponeas can be used to stop (and identify) the person in question. The government has the power it needs to enforce (against it's own citizens - it couldn't get foreigners anyway) libel laws online, it just has to go through a judge first. Personally, I think that standard is often too low, but that's what it is.
In addition, much of the purpose of monitoring people online is to attempt to determine information about an individual by the sites they visit. Judging from my history, it looks like I'm a staunch liberal, with aids, and an ACLU supporter. This couldn't be farther from the truth (the AIDS is due to reasearch about blood testing techniques - the batch of blood, mine and others, had someone with AIDS attempt to donate). As an example, reading neo-nazi propanda does not mean you support their cause, or even that you don't find it morally reprehensible. An employer checking the proxy logs won't necessarily know that.
The final argument I would make for privacy is that there are those who would invade the privacy of others to further their own agenda. In the United States, the constitution has the phrase "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". At the time this was written, this pretty much covered all one did and owned. To ensure law enforcement could do their job, the constitution also states "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." For the government to invade the privacy of an individual, a judge had to determine that there was sufficient cause for a warrant. Politicians have used government resources to attack other policical parties (watergate), imprisoned american citizans of japanese descent, improperly sieze currency and other assets for public use without just compensation, and a host of other wrongs. Honest actions can and have been used in court to make innocent men look guilty - "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
In short, if there is evidence I'm committing wrong, convince a judge of it, and get a warrant. If you lack enough evidence to convince a judge (it's a fairly low standard, really), you shouldn't be spying on me anyway, even in the name of "safety". The safest environment would be a world where throughouly screened guards "protect" the rest of the population, who all sit alone in their padded safe. It would be the ultimate, absolute safety and security, but certainly not a place I would want to live. Freedom is an end worth pursuing on it's own, and it is important to remember that (at least in the US), the government [supposedly] derives it's power from the consent of the governed. If that is no longer the case, the people have the right (and obligation) to replace it with one that does.
An officer has to have probable cause to initiate an investigation.
While this is _technically_ true, it's amazing how low that bar can be. I had the misfortune of dealing with the police not too long ago; I locked my door after leaving it (to keep them from barging in and claiming I consented to a search). They used that fact, and claimed that I was "evasive" and "refused to make eye contact" as the basis for obtaining a search warrant. The first statement is a gross mischaracterization; the second statement was patently false. Part of my job function is sales; I always make eye contact. I wasn't evasive, either - there was no need.
All that matters is that a judge determines probable cause was obtained, which is (of course) granted based largely on the officer's word. In some cases, this is necessary for law enforcement (officer smelled pot), as there isn't any direct evidence which can be gathered, and enforcement of the law requires belief of the officer. The downside to this is the potential for abuse by officers unconstrained by the truth. If they don't find anything, it's no skin off their back. If they do find something, you must have done enough to give them probable cause. The ends justify the means.
I do not mean to imply that _all_ cops are dishonest; rather, the potential for abuse is great, and the dishonest ones are far more noticable. The courts are supposed to serve the interest of justice, and keep officers honest - they don't always (and can't always) do so when the officer is willing to lie about the circumstances or the evidence.
Fortunatly, in my case, the cops were guilty of such gross malfeasance that I should prevail in court, even if it takes several appeals to do so. As an example, I had an officer pull out a knife, and tell me it was his "throwdown knife" - that if I got out of line, he could shoot me, and say I pulled the knife on him, making his shooting me self defense. There were a number of lies told by the arresting officer on the probable cause statement, as well as her reports (more than one officer was involved).
If the choice was between you or the hotshot programmer you would fire him and not you right?
You obviously don't understand how a _sensible_ company works. I am an owner in the company - with the exception of a buyout, that's not going to change any time soon.
That being said, when it comes to salary, I can (and have) gone without, so that the employees can be paid. When times are lean (all companies are startups at some point, and we didn't use VC money), we all make sacrifices. A company without direction doesn't do as well; a company without something to sell withers and dies. Replacing the hotshot programmer with 3 crappy programs (or 8 Indians) would "save money" and increase the amount of code produced, but it wouldn't do our company any good in the long term. If it comes down to me getting paid, or him leaving the company (for not being paid), I will make sure he gets paid. It's not altruism; if he leaves, the future of myself and the company is not as bright.
That being said, when we had a big contract pay late, I went to the other employees and _asked_ them to take a little less that month so that I could pull out what I needed to take care of myself. They knew how much I was making (pulled about $2k that month), I wasn't screwing them over. Fortunately, those times seem to be behind us now, but it isn't easy starting from nothing. If I'm not paying my employees well, I'm most certainly not paying myself large bonuses.
Companies aren't people; rather, they are an extension of people. If the owners work for the good of the people in it, rather than just themselves, the company will do better in the long run (why do you think so many companies go under?). Human greed being what it is, I've found the best way to do this is to make the employees owners - when they serve the interest of the owners, they serve the interest of the other employees.
My boss would rather keep my happy instead of trying to find a replacement for me. Winning formula for small businesses: 1) Hire competent people 2) Let them do their job 3) Pay them well for 2
I run a small software company, and your boss sounds like he runs things similarly to me. What's the point in having burned out, unhappy employees who work for less than everyone else (usually for a good reason). Makes much more sense to hire good people, and pay them well - ideally sharing in the success of the company either directly (bonus) or indirectly (raise).
This article has made me appreciate the people who work with me a lot more, too. I'm making plenty - why nickel and dime everyone else? It's certainly not the road to happiness (for anyone).
Wow. Who are you working for? Might I suggest you work somewhere else?
I've worked 9 to 5 (IT and services), union and non-union (Airlines). Unions have their place, but they are always going to have overhead. When the jobs aren't in horribly short supply, you can typically negotiate way better on your own. Working for America West (union), the guys I worked with would always do the bare minimum of what they were required to do to get paid. The pay took this into consideration, and it wasn't very good. I was there to work (didn't really need the money, but the flight benefits were nice); my coworkers would get ticked that I would take break time to go help out people on other gates. I'm paid to work, not paid to sit around - despite what the union contract said. Merit didn't matter, promotions and pay were based on time served, and it was almost impossible to get yourself promoted, or fired.
I also went to work for Mesa Airlines (America West Express, same facilities and terminal. Non union.) From what I understand, they weren't allowed to pay more than America West (contractual obligations); however, it didn't really matter. On time for work - $0.25/hour bonus. Working during the summer - $100 bonus. Company did well - $100 bonus. I made way more than any of the America West guys did in the same position, and since my coworkers could be fired, we got a way better caliber employee. Since the union didn't get involved, it was a lot easier for motivated people to make more money, and get promoted. On the other hand, lazy people who are just there to pay their dues do tend to stay where they are.
Finally, unionize. Your employee[sic] is trying very hard to reduce your pay as much as possible, you need a way to fight for what you are due. This, quite frankly, can be stupid advice depending on the state, and the company. I run a software company, and I hate unions with a passion. I'm in a right to work state for a reason (sadly, airlines are covered under the railway act, and can unionize). If you are a competent, hard-working, educated person, with a skill useful enough to justify your salary, you should not (generally speaking - there are some exception) need a union.
I do take offense to the "trying very hard to reduce your pay" quip. Not all employers are like this, and I most certainly am not one of them. Paying employees the same, regardless of the quality of the work they do, results in disgruntled, unproductive, unhappy employees who do the bare minimum required to not get fired. Why would you want to run a company you wouldn't want to work for? I choose to pay above average rates, for above average service. I'll pay for education, too. Employees who have fun, and are paid well for what they do are less likely to go to the competition, less likely to produce crap software, less likely to steal. I have one employee (a developer) who is utterly irreplaceable. He is one of the top people in his field. He also makes more than I do, because he adds more to the company than I do. I can be honest; he does things for the company that I can't. I have another employee who will be making a $25,000 USD bonus after this last contract we made. That's more than what he made in two years at his last job (not a US guy).
In short, while I don't know everyone, I do know me (and a few jobs I've worked). Not everyone is out there to screw you; however, large corporations tend to be really large for a reason (and it's not being nice). Learn a skill worth something, and go to work in a field where you can make a difference (whether for yourself, or someone else). Work with a group of people who care about each other, where it's not just about squeezing every last bit of productivity out of an employee before you discard his drained husk.
Of course, if the economy gets REALLY screwed up, unions may once again serve a useful purpose. When you have college graduates working at McDonalds (nationwide, so moving isn't an o
It's sometimes conveinent to be able to _put_ things in the clipboard. TinyURL uses this feature to automatically copy the generated link to the clipboard for pasting. I've also seen an IRC search engine that pre-copied the file transfer commands for you.
I still can't see a good reason to let the web page automatically get clipboard data. If you need it that badly, throw up a text box, and have the user hit paste.
You know, that's the nice thing about starting a company - you don't have to be a slavedriving, money-above-all-else kind of guy.
I started a company with a couple of guys. We're not rich (by a long shot); however, the bills are paid, and we work jobs we enjoy. We treat our contractors and employees fairly, and recognize they have lives. Of course, that may have something to do with some of the bosses we've had, but still...
Money isn't the be-all, end-all it's cracked up to be, and there is more to life than work. Not everyone is out to get you, and even if they were, you can almost always go do something else. If you are good at a skill people need, you can make a decent living - whether you're a locksmith or plumber, mechanic or whatever. As a bonus, you might even have fun doing it.
If you have halfway decent credit, you maximums can be way higher than that. In fact, I've repeatedly had limits raised automatically, without asking - sometimes by over $3000 at a time.
Also, for the Amex, "no pre-set limit" doesn't mean "no limit".
Housing has been rather screwy lately after the mad rush we had in '05. Like all things, the market eventually starts to correct itself. Gotta love supply and demand.
"the rich man and the poor man buy a loaf of bread, and the 30 cents tax on the bread that goes to the Fed means nothing to the rich man, but means a lot to the poor man."
Not with the "fairtax". Under the "FairTax" plan, everyone gets a "prebate" equal to (tax percentage * poverty line). Make less than the poverty level, pay no taxes (in fact, you get a check). Make more than that, pay more taxes.
As you said, the.30 tax means a lot more to the poor man than the rich man. The same goes for the "prebate" check.
Some of us detest the income tax, not just because we are "people who make lots of money". The IRS has _way_ too much power, and it really shouldn't be the Government's business how much we make (or not), or what legal means we use to acquire it. Sales tax is already vigorously enforced in many (most?) areas, and what you buy is (usually) bought in public anyway.
I personally prefer a sales tax to the way we are nickel and dimed (personal tax, estate tax, capital gains tax, alternative minimum tax, social security tax, medicare tax, self-employment tax, corporate income tax, and the myriad government-caused fees, surchases, tarrifs, etc.)
No paperwork for most citizens (yay!), less paperwork for businesses (overall, though more for sales-tax related things), illegal immigrants pay taxes, and they don't even get a rebate, removing most of the need of the IRS and their power. What's the downside?
The official threshold is still $10,000 USD, in cash or any combination of currency equivilents with cash - and it's not just banks.
You have to (for example) report to the IRS if someone pays you $11,000 cash, $7000 cash and $4000 in bank checks, etc. You don't have to report personal checks, or amounts _over_ $10000, where the whole or all of it's parts are in noncurrency forms over $10,000. So, you don't have to report a guy paying with two $11,000 bank drafts.
The reason for that is simple - the banks already reported them.
$100 to renew the copyright on a really cool piece of artwork that an aspiring artist has created? That's probably more than he spent on the materials!
Copyright is about providing incentives to produce work, and it does so by providing them a period of exclusivity (generally) in order for them to make money selling their works. Without an exclusive right to copy for some period of time, others could easily sell and copy the works, leaving the author without money.
As such, if the author is selling copies of the work regularly, the fee should be no issue. If the person isn't selling the work, and isn't producing new ones, than the "promoting the progress of science and useful" arts purpose of copyright isn't (usually) being fulfilled anyway, and the work doesn't deserve the protection offered. A notable exception to this would be open-source software, where the copyright is used for enforcing rules on distribution without the usual monetary incentives. On the other hand, is 50 year old software really worth protecting with copyright?
About a week ago, I went to purchase Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. Because I look under 40, they wouldn't let me buy the game without ID. Fair enough, I pull out my student ID, and offer it.
I was informed that not only would it require offering government-issued photo ID, but it would be necessary to extract all of the information off of it, rather than just enter my age/dob. I refused, and escalated the issue to a manager, who refused to override, and informed the cashier she would be fired on the spot if she hit the "looks over 40" button.
Of course, the manager was unable to provide me with all the information on _her_ license (it's private), but couldn't see why I wouldn't want to provide my name, address, social security number (I got my license before they switched to a numeric system), race, and (potential) disabilities to target, just to buy a video game.
Walking over to Wal-Mart, I paid cash. The computer asked them to check (not swipe) ID. Cashier saw I was "old enough", hit OK, and I was on my merry way. I found this rather odd, given how "RFID Gung Ho" they seem. Perhaps it's about ruthless efficiency, rather than a need to track people. Or, maybe it's the fact that half the people seem to be illegal immigrants who shop at my local Wal-Mart.
I have an ISP that allows me to share my service. I want to make it available to those around me.
How do I tell people it's free and available, without them connecting to me first?
I run a web site. I want customers to access it. How can I let people know it's free and open, without them connecting to me first (and potentially "tresspassing" in the process).
The answer to both is simple, and should be handled similarly to how physical property is handled. A front door is an invitation to tresspass, long enough to state your business (it has to be so, or you could never visit anyone). Trespass is when you extend your stay once you have been told to leave. With computer systems on publically accessible networks (internet), or publically accessable airways (wifi), the only sensible solution is to have a password or other authentication on things which shouldn't be public. When you get a big "Access Denied" message, it should be a hint that what you are accessing is considered private.
Do you really want to live in a world where you need prior written permission to visit a neighbor, visit slashdot, or use the wifi at starbucks?
Lockpicks also have a tendency to end up confiscated, whether you are actually violating the law or not.
I had one pair confiscated in the airport in California; I was violating no law. CA licenses locksmiths in much the same way as their hairdressers - you can work on your own locks, or your company's locks; however, you cannot get paid to work on the locks of others without a license.
Had a similar incident in Provo, UT. Had some fireworks around the fourth of July (a little more powerful than what might be legal). After a noise complaint, they searched my apartment. No more fireworks, but they took my laptops, lockpicks, rekey sets, etc. as "evidence". (Provo specifically exempts people working on the property of their employer from the relevant statutes).
Got the first one back with an apology. Still working on the rest of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Quoth the parent: See my comment here.
You might think you own it, but SUPRISE, you are licensing it.
The fact you keep repeating the same wrong information doesn't make it any less wrong.
Adobe made that same claim you are making. It didn't go over well in court. It didn't go over too well for Microsoft either (Microsoft Corp. v. DAK Indus). Novell tried that argument, and got shot down too (Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc., 2000 ).
"...the Ninth Circuit held that the economic realities of the agreement indicated that it was a sale, not a license to use."
"... Like Adobe, CPU argued that it purchased the software from an authorized source, and was entitled to resell it under the first sale doctrine. Novell claimed that it did not sell software but merely licensed it to distribution partners. The court held that these transactions constituted sales and not a license, and therefore that the first sale doctrine applied. 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9975 at *18."
"...The Court finds that the circumstances surrounding the transaction strongly suggests that the transaction is in fact a sale rather than a license. For example, the purchaser commonly obtains a single copy of the software, with documentation, for a single price, which the purchaser pays at the time of the transaction, and which constitutes the entire payment for the "license." The license runs for an indefinite term without provisions for renewal. In light of these indicia, many courts and commentators conclude that a "shrinkwrap license" transaction is a sale of goods rather than a license."
"...Ownership of a copy should be determined based on the actual character, rather than the label, of the transaction by which the user obtained possession. Merely labeling a transaction as a lease or license does not control. If a transaction involves a single payment giving the buyer an unlimited period in which it has a right to possession, the transaction is a sale."
"Raymond Nimmer, The Law of Computer Technology 1.18[1] p. 1-103 (1992). The Court agrees that a single payment for a perpetual transfer of possession is, in reality, a sale of personal proper and therefore transfers ownership of that property, the copy of the software. "
So, at least in the US, a one-time payment for a perpetual use of software is a SALE, regardless of what you call it, and rightfully so. They can't change that with a EULA any more than a car dealership could claim you had a one-time lease payment, with a lifetime use period and the right to transfer the lease for free (thus avoiding legal regulations with regards to sale of vehicles). Any reasonable court would rule that such was a sale, not a lease. What you call it doesn't matter.
Which country gets to decide what is required to go there?
.islam, so we can more easily catch terror subjects? How about we protect the children by requiring any site that allows user generated content to be on a .adult domain, and verify government issued ID? Think of the children!
I just got back from spain (3GSM tradeshow) - companies openly displayed images of topless women. The same goes for their bookstores - something that wouldn't fly in the United States. On the other hand, there are a number of countries that consider "adult" violence that in the United States can be displayed at any time on public airwaves.
Besides the jurisdictional issues, you have issues with entire countries (ones that censor already) having a very easy job of removing all adult content in compliance from their country. Whether or not that is a good thing is subject to debate.
It also sets a bad precident - if the government (any government) has the right to force content to belong in certain regulated areas of the internet, it opens up the door to all kinds of abuse. How about we require all content in arabic to be on
Easy filtering goes both ways - the easier it is for you to censor things for the children, the easier it is for others (government, employer, library, ISP) to filter things for you. In the case of the employer, it may be justified, but random ISPs should not be filtering without you opting in for such.
Better than Phoenix - as it never gets really cold (although there was a little snow around a week ago, go figure), it's always construction season.
When we first moved here, my mother told my father "I'll love you till construction finishes at Sky Harbor (the airport)". 14 years later, construction is still going strong. She grew up here, and it was going strong then, too.
Just because it's not stated, does not mean it is forbidden.
Actually, it is:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The fact that the federal government has abused the commerce clause and completly disregarded most of the constitution for some time now doesn't make this particular encroachment right.
Of course, you are assuming he hadn't swapped out the CPU and HD a couple of months earlier, and that the RAM and Video Card weren't just the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back.
Well, I don't know about the parent, but I'm using a revocable virtual debit card, through XRost (a prepaid online payment card), then on to AllOfMP3. In fact, you can't provide a credit card directly to AllOfMP3 anymore (blame Visa for that).
A slight hassle? Of course. A risk? Hardly.
Not those. These. (Look in the upper middle of the screen).
Most people don't seem to see them, and they typically try to make it after a bright flash (which makes them a little less visibile). Personally, they drive me nuts, but so do single projector DLPs.
Well, from other's statements, I can assume that I'm outside the norm, but here's been my "experience" with Mac ownership (typing on one of them now).
First MacBook Pro (not Core 2 Duo) - freezes, overheats (in OS X). Runs so hot it can burn me. Apple replaced with:
Second MacBook Pro (not Core 2 Duo) - doesn't freeze, but it's still hot enough to cause bad burns. Hard drive started the click of death in less than a week of use. Replaced with:
Third MacBook Pro (not Core 2 Duo) - currently in use. Randomly freezes during startup, rebooting always fixes it. Wifi sometimes craps out for no reason. Still hot enough to burn. Keep it because it "just works" well enough to keep me from needing to replace it, and the guy in our company using it is a good distance from an Apple store.
The other MacBook Pro (Core 2 Duo - what I'm using at the moment, while windows is reinstalling on my _real_ laptop (Clevo D900K)) was broken before it even turned on. The screen had seperated from the casing during shipment, and once opened wouldn't close unless you really jammed it shut. Took it down to the Apple store, they ordered some parts, and I got it back in a week. For some reason, swapping out the LCD required a new logic board for the system. I know better than to ask why.
I'm using the Core 2 Duo now, in Windows because for some reason, OS X will not work with the WI-FI network here. I find that particularly odd given that my cell phone and PDA work just fine (no Windows specific software). When I need to get real work done, I use VMWare and run linux. For games, I use Windows. About the only thing I use OS X for anymore is network bridging (WI-FI to whatever device I'm working on), although it seems overkill to use a $2400 PC instead of a $75 wireless bridge.
I've been told that it "just works" - my experience is that it "just works poorly". If my company didn't produce software for OS X, I'd eBay the machine and never look back.
Posted non-anonymously, because I don't have anything to hide.
You ask - "if you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?". I ask, "if I'm not doing anything wrong, why do you feel the need to spy on me?".
Avoiding the obvious issues with international law, having your activities spied upon tends to change what you do. In some cases, this is a good thing (less crime) - in some cases, it's not.
Consider someone who is aware of wrongdoing by their company/politician/etc. With the (relative) anonymity of the internet, that person can go online and expose the wrongdoing. Even with laws protecting whistleblowers from retribution, companies (and in some cases, politicians) have a history of making their lives unpleasant anyway. What keeps people from arbitrarily running smear campaigns? With sufficient evidence to convince a judge of wrongdoing by the purported "whistleblower", injunctions and subponeas can be used to stop (and identify) the person in question. The government has the power it needs to enforce (against it's own citizens - it couldn't get foreigners anyway) libel laws online, it just has to go through a judge first. Personally, I think that standard is often too low, but that's what it is.
In addition, much of the purpose of monitoring people online is to attempt to determine information about an individual by the sites they visit. Judging from my history, it looks like I'm a staunch liberal, with aids, and an ACLU supporter. This couldn't be farther from the truth (the AIDS is due to reasearch about blood testing techniques - the batch of blood, mine and others, had someone with AIDS attempt to donate). As an example, reading neo-nazi propanda does not mean you support their cause, or even that you don't find it morally reprehensible. An employer checking the proxy logs won't necessarily know that.
The final argument I would make for privacy is that there are those who would invade the privacy of others to further their own agenda. In the United States, the constitution has the phrase "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". At the time this was written, this pretty much covered all one did and owned. To ensure law enforcement could do their job, the constitution also states "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." For the government to invade the privacy of an individual, a judge had to determine that there was sufficient cause for a warrant. Politicians have used government resources to attack other policical parties (watergate), imprisoned american citizans of japanese descent, improperly sieze currency and other assets for public use without just compensation, and a host of other wrongs. Honest actions can and have been used in court to make innocent men look guilty - "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
In short, if there is evidence I'm committing wrong, convince a judge of it, and get a warrant. If you lack enough evidence to convince a judge (it's a fairly low standard, really), you shouldn't be spying on me anyway, even in the name of "safety". The safest environment would be a world where throughouly screened guards "protect" the rest of the population, who all sit alone in their padded safe. It would be the ultimate, absolute safety and security, but certainly not a place I would want to live. Freedom is an end worth pursuing on it's own, and it is important to remember that (at least in the US), the government [supposedly] derives it's power from the consent of the governed. If that is no longer the case, the people have the right (and obligation) to replace it with one that does.
If Apple and Cisco were indeed in negotiations, Cisco should have disclosed that by now.
You mean something like this?
An officer has to have probable cause to initiate an investigation.
While this is _technically_ true, it's amazing how low that bar can be. I had the misfortune of dealing with the police not too long ago; I locked my door after leaving it (to keep them from barging in and claiming I consented to a search). They used that fact, and claimed that I was "evasive" and "refused to make eye contact" as the basis for obtaining a search warrant. The first statement is a gross mischaracterization; the second statement was patently false. Part of my job function is sales; I always make eye contact. I wasn't evasive, either - there was no need.
All that matters is that a judge determines probable cause was obtained, which is (of course) granted based largely on the officer's word. In some cases, this is necessary for law enforcement (officer smelled pot), as there isn't any direct evidence which can be gathered, and enforcement of the law requires belief of the officer. The downside to this is the potential for abuse by officers unconstrained by the truth. If they don't find anything, it's no skin off their back. If they do find something, you must have done enough to give them probable cause. The ends justify the means.
I do not mean to imply that _all_ cops are dishonest; rather, the potential for abuse is great, and the dishonest ones are far more noticable. The courts are supposed to serve the interest of justice, and keep officers honest - they don't always (and can't always) do so when the officer is willing to lie about the circumstances or the evidence.
Fortunatly, in my case, the cops were guilty of such gross malfeasance that I should prevail in court, even if it takes several appeals to do so. As an example, I had an officer pull out a knife, and tell me it was his "throwdown knife" - that if I got out of line, he could shoot me, and say I pulled the knife on him, making his shooting me self defense. There were a number of lies told by the arresting officer on the probable cause statement, as well as her reports (more than one officer was involved).
If the choice was between you or the hotshot programmer you would fire him and not you right?
You obviously don't understand how a _sensible_ company works. I am an owner in the company - with the exception of a buyout, that's not going to change any time soon.
That being said, when it comes to salary, I can (and have) gone without, so that the employees can be paid. When times are lean (all companies are startups at some point, and we didn't use VC money), we all make sacrifices. A company without direction doesn't do as well; a company without something to sell withers and dies. Replacing the hotshot programmer with 3 crappy programs (or 8 Indians) would "save money" and increase the amount of code produced, but it wouldn't do our company any good in the long term. If it comes down to me getting paid, or him leaving the company (for not being paid), I will make sure he gets paid. It's not altruism; if he leaves, the future of myself and the company is not as bright.
That being said, when we had a big contract pay late, I went to the other employees and _asked_ them to take a little less that month so that I could pull out what I needed to take care of myself. They knew how much I was making (pulled about $2k that month), I wasn't screwing them over. Fortunately, those times seem to be behind us now, but it isn't easy starting from nothing. If I'm not paying my employees well, I'm most certainly not paying myself large bonuses.
Companies aren't people; rather, they are an extension of people. If the owners work for the good of the people in it, rather than just themselves, the company will do better in the long run (why do you think so many companies go under?). Human greed being what it is, I've found the best way to do this is to make the employees owners - when they serve the interest of the owners, they serve the interest of the other employees.
My boss would rather keep my happy instead of trying to find a replacement for me.
Winning formula for small businesses:
1) Hire competent people
2) Let them do their job
3) Pay them well for 2
I run a small software company, and your boss sounds like he runs things similarly to me. What's the point in having burned out, unhappy employees who work for less than everyone else (usually for a good reason). Makes much more sense to hire good people, and pay them well - ideally sharing in the success of the company either directly (bonus) or indirectly (raise).
This article has made me appreciate the people who work with me a lot more, too. I'm making plenty - why nickel and dime everyone else? It's certainly not the road to happiness (for anyone).
Wow. Who are you working for? Might I suggest you work somewhere else?
I've worked 9 to 5 (IT and services), union and non-union (Airlines). Unions have their place, but they are always going to have overhead. When the jobs aren't in horribly short supply, you can typically negotiate way better on your own. Working for America West (union), the guys I worked with would always do the bare minimum of what they were required to do to get paid. The pay took this into consideration, and it wasn't very good. I was there to work (didn't really need the money, but the flight benefits were nice); my coworkers would get ticked that I would take break time to go help out people on other gates. I'm paid to work, not paid to sit around - despite what the union contract said. Merit didn't matter, promotions and pay were based on time served, and it was almost impossible to get yourself promoted, or fired.
I also went to work for Mesa Airlines (America West Express, same facilities and terminal. Non union.) From what I understand, they weren't allowed to pay more than America West (contractual obligations); however, it didn't really matter. On time for work - $0.25/hour bonus. Working during the summer - $100 bonus. Company did well - $100 bonus. I made way more than any of the America West guys did in the same position, and since my coworkers could be fired, we got a way better caliber employee. Since the union didn't get involved, it was a lot easier for motivated people to make more money, and get promoted. On the other hand, lazy people who are just there to pay their dues do tend to stay where they are.
Finally, unionize. Your employee[sic] is trying very hard to reduce your pay as much as possible, you need a way to fight for what you are due.
This, quite frankly, can be stupid advice depending on the state, and the company. I run a software company, and I hate unions with a passion. I'm in a right to work state for a reason (sadly, airlines are covered under the railway act, and can unionize). If you are a competent, hard-working, educated person, with a skill useful enough to justify your salary, you should not (generally speaking - there are some exception) need a union.
I do take offense to the "trying very hard to reduce your pay" quip. Not all employers are like this, and I most certainly am not one of them. Paying employees the same, regardless of the quality of the work they do, results in disgruntled, unproductive, unhappy employees who do the bare minimum required to not get fired. Why would you want to run a company you wouldn't want to work for? I choose to pay above average rates, for above average service. I'll pay for education, too. Employees who have fun, and are paid well for what they do are less likely to go to the competition, less likely to produce crap software, less likely to steal. I have one employee (a developer) who is utterly irreplaceable. He is one of the top people in his field. He also makes more than I do, because he adds more to the company than I do. I can be honest; he does things for the company that I can't. I have another employee who will be making a $25,000 USD bonus after this last contract we made. That's more than what he made in two years at his last job (not a US guy).
In short, while I don't know everyone, I do know me (and a few jobs I've worked). Not everyone is out there to screw you; however, large corporations tend to be really large for a reason (and it's not being nice). Learn a skill worth something, and go to work in a field where you can make a difference (whether for yourself, or someone else). Work with a group of people who care about each other, where it's not just about squeezing every last bit of productivity out of an employee before you discard his drained husk.
Of course, if the economy gets REALLY screwed up, unions may once again serve a useful purpose. When you have college graduates working at McDonalds (nationwide, so moving isn't an o
It's sometimes conveinent to be able to _put_ things in the clipboard. TinyURL uses this feature to automatically copy the generated link to the clipboard for pasting. I've also seen an IRC search engine that pre-copied the file transfer commands for you.
I still can't see a good reason to let the web page automatically get clipboard data. If you need it that badly, throw up a text box, and have the user hit paste.
You know, that's the nice thing about starting a company - you don't have to be a slavedriving, money-above-all-else kind of guy.
I started a company with a couple of guys. We're not rich (by a long shot); however, the bills are paid, and we work jobs we enjoy. We treat our contractors and employees fairly, and recognize they have lives. Of course, that may have something to do with some of the bosses we've had, but still...
Money isn't the be-all, end-all it's cracked up to be, and there is more to life than work. Not everyone is out to get you, and even if they were, you can almost always go do something else. If you are good at a skill people need, you can make a decent living - whether you're a locksmith or plumber, mechanic or whatever. As a bonus, you might even have fun doing it.
If you have halfway decent credit, you maximums can be way higher than that. In fact, I've repeatedly had limits raised automatically, without asking - sometimes by over $3000 at a time.
Also, for the Amex, "no pre-set limit" doesn't mean "no limit".
I wouldn't worry too much about it.
Housing has been rather screwy lately after the mad rush we had in '05. Like all things, the market eventually starts to correct itself. Gotta love supply and demand.
"the rich man and the poor man buy a loaf of bread, and the 30 cents tax on the bread that goes to the Fed means nothing to the rich man, but means a lot to the poor man."
.30 tax means a lot more to the poor man than the rich man. The same goes for the "prebate" check.
Not with the "fairtax". Under the "FairTax" plan, everyone gets a "prebate" equal to (tax percentage * poverty line). Make less than the poverty level, pay no taxes (in fact, you get a check). Make more than that, pay more taxes.
As you said, the
Some of us detest the income tax, not just because we are "people who make lots of money". The IRS has _way_ too much power, and it really shouldn't be the Government's business how much we make (or not), or what legal means we use to acquire it. Sales tax is already vigorously enforced in many (most?) areas, and what you buy is (usually) bought in public anyway.
I personally prefer a sales tax to the way we are nickel and dimed (personal tax, estate tax, capital gains tax, alternative minimum tax, social security tax, medicare tax, self-employment tax, corporate income tax, and the myriad government-caused fees, surchases, tarrifs, etc.)
No paperwork for most citizens (yay!), less paperwork for businesses (overall, though more for sales-tax related things), illegal immigrants pay taxes, and they don't even get a rebate, removing most of the need of the IRS and their power. What's the downside?
The official threshold is still $10,000 USD, in cash or any combination of currency equivilents with cash - and it's not just banks.
You have to (for example) report to the IRS if someone pays you $11,000 cash, $7000 cash and $4000 in bank checks, etc. You don't have to report personal checks, or amounts _over_ $10000, where the whole or all of it's parts are in noncurrency forms over $10,000. So, you don't have to report a guy paying with two $11,000 bank drafts.
The reason for that is simple - the banks already reported them.
Yeah, it's for tax reasons.
$100 to renew the copyright on a really cool piece of artwork that an aspiring artist has created? That's probably more than he spent on the materials!
Copyright is about providing incentives to produce work, and it does so by providing them a period of exclusivity (generally) in order for them to make money selling their works. Without an exclusive right to copy for some period of time, others could easily sell and copy the works, leaving the author without money.
As such, if the author is selling copies of the work regularly, the fee should be no issue. If the person isn't selling the work, and isn't producing new ones, than the "promoting the progress of science and useful" arts purpose of copyright isn't (usually) being fulfilled anyway, and the work doesn't deserve the protection offered. A notable exception to this would be open-source software, where the copyright is used for enforcing rules on distribution without the usual monetary incentives. On the other hand, is 50 year old software really worth protecting with copyright?
This isn't just the case at bars and clubs.
About a week ago, I went to purchase Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. Because I look under 40, they wouldn't let me buy the game without ID. Fair enough, I pull out my student ID, and offer it.
I was informed that not only would it require offering government-issued photo ID, but it would be necessary to extract all of the information off of it, rather than just enter my age/dob. I refused, and escalated the issue to a manager, who refused to override, and informed the cashier she would be fired on the spot if she hit the "looks over 40" button.
Of course, the manager was unable to provide me with all the information on _her_ license (it's private), but couldn't see why I wouldn't want to provide my name, address, social security number (I got my license before they switched to a numeric system), race, and (potential) disabilities to target, just to buy a video game.
Walking over to Wal-Mart, I paid cash. The computer asked them to check (not swipe) ID. Cashier saw I was "old enough", hit OK, and I was on my merry way. I found this rather odd, given how "RFID Gung Ho" they seem. Perhaps it's about ruthless efficiency, rather than a need to track people. Or, maybe it's the fact that half the people seem to be illegal immigrants who shop at my local Wal-Mart.
I have an ISP that allows me to share my service. I want to make it available to those around me.
How do I tell people it's free and available, without them connecting to me first?
I run a web site. I want customers to access it. How can I let people know it's free and open, without them connecting to me first (and potentially "tresspassing" in the process).
The answer to both is simple, and should be handled similarly to how physical property is handled. A front door is an invitation to tresspass, long enough to state your business (it has to be so, or you could never visit anyone). Trespass is when you extend your stay once you have been told to leave. With computer systems on publically accessible networks (internet), or publically accessable airways (wifi), the only sensible solution is to have a password or other authentication on things which shouldn't be public. When you get a big "Access Denied" message, it should be a hint that what you are accessing is considered private.
Do you really want to live in a world where you need prior written permission to visit a neighbor, visit slashdot, or use the wifi at starbucks?
Lockpicks also have a tendency to end up confiscated, whether you are actually violating the law or not.
I had one pair confiscated in the airport in California; I was violating no law. CA licenses locksmiths in much the same way as their hairdressers - you can work on your own locks, or your company's locks; however, you cannot get paid to work on the locks of others without a license.
Had a similar incident in Provo, UT. Had some fireworks around the fourth of July (a little more powerful than what might be legal). After a noise complaint, they searched my apartment. No more fireworks, but they took my laptops, lockpicks, rekey sets, etc. as "evidence". (Provo specifically exempts people working on the property of their employer from the relevant statutes).
Got the first one back with an apology. Still working on the rest of it.
So your kernel compiled without modules write-protects /dev/kmem, too?
Granted, using something like GRSecurity, it's certainly doable. It does, however, require some third party help.