But from my perspective, you need doctors and mosquito nets a hell of a lot more than you need.NET programmers.
And we need.NET programmers to pay taxes so we can pay doctors and buy mosquito nets.
And yes, Let's try not to let fact interfere with our rant here, OK?
I thought we had all agreed that software patents were a bad idea? All of them.
You must be new here.
Here are the rules reg. patents on slashdot:
If it is a patent by google/apple, it is a defensive patent and hence good.
If it is a patent by any other company, it is teh evil.
If it is a patent that hurts Microsoft, then it is good and that is how patents are supposed to work.
I don't get your point - I am saying the same thing: Steering is not the same as driving; and the people behind this law have confused steering and driving. Hence my point about being able to easily steer with one hand without affecting my driving.
Actually, I have a suggestion for people like you - work really hard and maybe someday you will be able to double your IQ to 50. Then you can participate in coversations without coming off as a total fuckwad.
Except in emergencies, motorists in those states can use cell phones only with hands-free devices, such as earpieces
I thought it was the distraction of talking to someone whom you cannot see that was the problem - most drivers can steer the car with one hand.
So what now, ban drinking coffee in cars, applying lipstick while driving?
After all, this also causes the driver to take one hand off the wheel.
Don't they *think* before making these laws?
So how much 'freedom and liberty' does a govt need to give its citizens before it is considered 'good'? And how do you measure it? What scale do you have that decides how 'freedom loving' a govt is? And why do we have to go by your scale? Why not use the Chinese govt's scale?
The USA does not allow same-sex marriages - some might consider that draconian and repressive. Some might consider it a minor thing. So, now, is the USA and repressive regime or a freedom loving one? The answer depends on your point of view.
Maybe you didn't get to this part:
b) write to their representatives to change the political system - a workers revolution and to each according to their needs.
Are these workers entitled to those jobs? They took those jobs knowing fully well what the rules of the game were - that the shareholders and management can fire them if they think that is in the interest of the corporation.
If those workers didn't like that, they could've:
a)taken different jobs or
b) started their own businesses or
b) write to their representatives to change the political system - a workers revolution and to each according to their needs.
They would change the way we look at the history of the world. I mean Blake Stowell take on modern history would be likely to be stating something like 'Our research have found this statement from 1929 from Adolf Hitler stating that he liked Jews, this earlier statement of course invalidates everything that happened afterwards and shows that Hitler have been deeply misrepresented as a proponent for anti-semitism.'
That is what you (we) would be reading if Hitler had actually won. I mean, you don't read that the British engineered famines in India and gassed people in Sudan and Iraq do you?
You're either not very competitive or not very successfull- regardless of your balance sheet. It could be you're in a low-competition industry that there aren't any major competitors for your business. It could be that you simply aren't taking enough market share YET to get noticed. Either way- it will happen eventually.
Wow. That is amazing. Without knowing what business we are in, what our margins are, you can pass judgement that we are not successfull or competitive. Amazing!
If you failed- do you really think your employees would have stayed employed? Heck, if you sold out rather than fail, do you really think your employees would stay employed?
I do not understand this statement and what is has to do with my point. My point was that we (my partner and I) should make more money than my current employees, simply because we took the risk and we should be rewarded for that risk. Otherwise, why would we have bothered to start a business that provides employement to ~ 7 people?
You employed people to have fun for you? On company time?
Maybe I was not clear enough. I meant that while we started out (no employees), we put in 15-20 hours days. At that time, most of my current employees, were gainfully employed in other companies, got married, bought houses, etc.
Now, you are telling me that I should share my company's profits equally with my employees? Then what is my reward for putting in the long hours?
Conversely- say your employees make you a lot of money. Say one single employee was completely responsible for half your revenue- would it be fair to keep paying him the same as the rest are getting?
Depends - if the fictional employee (who makes half the revenue of the company) is able to do it because of his unique talent, yes, he/she will get paid a lot. If the employee is able to make that money simply because of my organization (he goes to a client, says I'm from XYZ corp and the client gives the order because he is from XYZ corp), he will get paid the market salary. If he quits, I will just replace him.
Too bad if you try to do this in the United States without enough money for complete financial security and independance, one of the bigger guys will come and offer to buy out your company. If you refuse, your safe full of company secrets will myseriously disappear to a fire. If you persist in continuing to threaten the big guy's business, his thugs will come and offer to blow out your brains. And NOTHING can be done to stop them- because they've already bought the politicians, lawyers, and judges.
Hmmm - I started a business 2 years ago. This year, our revenue is nearing $2 million. We did not have "enough money for complete financial security and independance". My partner and I had enough money for next month's rent.
No "big guys" came and offered to buy us out; neither did any thugs come after us.
We took a huge risk, put our futures at stake and now you are telling me that my employees must make the same money that I'm making? The same employees who were working in steady jobs and had fun while we worked our tails out?
This is what sickens me about unions.
So, a poster here at Slashdot knows more about the needs of the "third world" than the people who live and work there. Hmmm, maybe you should just stick to Soviet Russia and Korea.
The Dallas Cowboys, Inc v Pussycat Cinema is, *again* a commercial case where "Debbie does Dallas"....
Where can I get a copy of this video? It is for, em... DMCA research purposes....
What do we expect will happen? Why will we "own" everything? Because a piece of paper says we own it. What happens when the people that actually do the work tear up the piece of paper?
Slashdot Mirror
But from my perspective, you need doctors and mosquito nets a hell of a lot more than you need .NET programmers.
.NET programmers to pay taxes so we can pay doctors and buy mosquito nets.
And we need
And yes, Let's try not to let fact interfere with our rant here, OK?
I thought we had all agreed that software patents were a bad idea? All of them.
You must be new here.
Here are the rules reg. patents on slashdot:
If it is a patent by google/apple, it is a defensive patent and hence good.
If it is a patent by any other company, it is teh evil.
If it is a patent that hurts Microsoft, then it is good and that is how patents are supposed to work.
...
Vishu: "Oh blessed karma! Thank you American sir!"
You: "Anytime."
Vishnu (muttering to himself): "What a dick"
- Vishnu Ramachandran
I don't get your point - I am saying the same thing: Steering is not the same as driving; and the people behind this law have confused steering and driving. Hence my point about being able to easily steer with one hand without affecting my driving.
Actually, I have a suggestion for people like you - work really hard and maybe someday you will be able to double your IQ to 50. Then you can participate in coversations without coming off as a total fuckwad.
Except in emergencies, motorists in those states can use cell phones only with hands-free devices, such as earpieces
I thought it was the distraction of talking to someone whom you cannot see that was the problem - most drivers can steer the car with one hand.
So what now, ban drinking coffee in cars, applying lipstick while driving? After all, this also causes the driver to take one hand off the wheel.
Don't they *think* before making these laws?
Windows sucks .executable internet...something...something...
Linux rulez
and , oh..
So how much 'freedom and liberty' does a govt need to give its citizens before it is considered 'good'? And how do you measure it? What scale do you have that decides how 'freedom loving' a govt is? And why do we have to go by your scale? Why not use the Chinese govt's scale?
The USA does not allow same-sex marriages - some might consider that draconian and repressive. Some might consider it a minor thing. So, now, is the USA and repressive regime or a freedom loving one? The answer depends on your point of view.
I don't know... the coast guard?
And finally, if someone spray paints a swastica on my garage door while I'm out of town and unable to remove it, am I liable for a hate crime?
We have many swastikas in our Hindu temple - nobody has complained.
Maybe you didn't get to this part:
b) write to their representatives to change the political system - a workers revolution and to each according to their needs.
Are these workers entitled to those jobs? They took those jobs knowing fully well what the rules of the game were - that the shareholders and management can fire them if they think that is in the interest of the corporation.
If those workers didn't like that, they could've:
a)taken different jobs or
b) started their own businesses or
b) write to their representatives to change the political system - a workers revolution and to each according to their needs.
They would change the way we look at the history of the world. I mean Blake Stowell take on modern history would be likely to be stating something like 'Our research have found this statement from 1929 from Adolf Hitler stating that he liked Jews, this earlier statement of course invalidates everything that happened afterwards and shows that Hitler have been deeply misrepresented as a proponent for anti-semitism.'
That is what you (we) would be reading if Hitler had actually won. I mean, you don't read that the British engineered famines in India and gassed people in Sudan and Iraq do you?
History is written by the winners.
West Bengal and Kerala (in India) is/was communist for almost 30 years.
They held elections just like everyone else.
I hate communism more than anyone else, but don't spread lies to fight it.
You're either not very competitive or not very successfull- regardless of your balance sheet. It could be you're in a low-competition industry that there aren't any major competitors for your business. It could be that you simply aren't taking enough market share YET to get noticed. Either way- it will happen eventually.
Wow. That is amazing. Without knowing what business we are in, what our margins are, you can pass judgement that we are not successfull or competitive. Amazing!
If you failed- do you really think your employees would have stayed employed? Heck, if you sold out rather than fail, do you really think your employees would stay employed?
I do not understand this statement and what is has to do with my point. My point was that we (my partner and I) should make more money than my current employees, simply because we took the risk and we should be rewarded for that risk. Otherwise, why would we have bothered to start a business that provides employement to ~ 7 people?
You employed people to have fun for you? On company time?
Maybe I was not clear enough. I meant that while we started out (no employees), we put in 15-20 hours days. At that time, most of my current employees, were gainfully employed in other companies, got married, bought houses, etc.
Now, you are telling me that I should share my company's profits equally with my employees? Then what is my reward for putting in the long hours?
Conversely- say your employees make you a lot of money. Say one single employee was completely responsible for half your revenue- would it be fair to keep paying him the same as the rest are getting?
Depends - if the fictional employee (who makes half the revenue of the company) is able to do it because of his unique talent, yes, he/she will get paid a lot. If the employee is able to make that money simply because of my organization (he goes to a client, says I'm from XYZ corp and the client gives the order because he is from XYZ corp), he will get paid the market salary. If he quits, I will just replace him.
Too bad if you try to do this in the United States without enough money for complete financial security and independance, one of the bigger guys will come and offer to buy out your company. If you refuse, your safe full of company secrets will myseriously disappear to a fire. If you persist in continuing to threaten the big guy's business, his thugs will come and offer to blow out your brains. And NOTHING can be done to stop them- because they've already bought the politicians, lawyers, and judges.
Hmmm - I started a business 2 years ago. This year, our revenue is nearing $2 million. We did not have "enough money for complete financial security and independance". My partner and I had enough money for next month's rent.
No "big guys" came and offered to buy us out; neither did any thugs come after us.
We took a huge risk, put our futures at stake and now you are telling me that my employees must make the same money that I'm making? The same employees who were working in steady jobs and had fun while we worked our tails out?
This is what sickens me about unions.
(Anyone else remember the days when you picked up the phone and got an operator? Oh, wait...there are places like that in Argentina and India.)
Have you been to either of those places? Too bad that you had to spoil your (otherwise) insightful comment with this sort of crap.
So, a poster here at Slashdot knows more about the needs of the "third world" than the people who live and work there. Hmmm, maybe you should just stick to Soviet Russia and Korea.
The Dallas Cowboys, Inc v Pussycat Cinema is, *again* a commercial case where "Debbie does Dallas" ....
Where can I get a copy of this video? It is for, em... DMCA research purposes....
What do we expect will happen? Why will we "own" everything? Because a piece of paper says we own it. What happens when the people that actually do the work tear up the piece of paper?
What do you think the military is for?
Only large corporations are able to file patents for every brain-fart they come....
Brain fart? I have a patent on that - I'll see you in court.
Indian Standard Time. Look at their home page - they are an Indian company.