MS and Novell have a set of agreements to protect each other from each other. Sure. That's what legal documents are for.
Linux advocates scouring legal documents for violations is less useful than me trying to scour my bathroom. Leave the legal docs to the lawyers, and let Linux advocates resume geeking as usual while speaking high Klingon and dressing up as furries.
The party of small government has disappeared, and has been replaced by the new and improved "Spend & Spend" Republican Party.
If we had been a little less compassionate (read: pansified) we could have nuked the right parts of the Middle East and the spending would have significantly less. Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia all have to go.
Where I went to high school, the odds are pretty good that this "training exercise" could have gone bad, and some of the students who have snuck their own handguns and shot back at them for real.
Yeah, and as an employee who has taken quite a few technical interviews it comes across like Shockley (a eugenics whackjob) brainteasers that are still in use today at Amazon, Microsoft and Google See: http://www.amazon.com/How-Would-Move-Mount-Fuji/dp /0316778494 .
The sad part about it is that most interviewees don't even realize they are being patronized.
You don't trust us. We don't trust you; and that is why employee retention is so difficult. Employers need to grow up, and show a little respect for their prospective employees.
Their stock price *may* fall.
They've had enough bad press with the whole China/censorship thing that pulling out may be considered as a stop-loss. You cannot predict the market reaction to this move.
With the cash reserves Google has, they can afford to pull out of any country they want. Even the shrewdest of investors would gladly see that Google would want to do business where it is easiest to do so most profitably.
"Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The trouble-makers. The round heads in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules, and they have no respect for the status-quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify, or vilify them. But the only thing you can't do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do."
- Jack Kerouac
Technology arrives to the masses in a curve, the first being early adopters, the middle being somewhat savvy people, and inevitably the the laggards. By the time every laggard has access to the technology it will be an expected commodity. A good example of this is the telephone.
If the broadband is "too hard to use", it wouldn't have ever taken off and made it past the early adopters.
Making technology a commodity is more important than trying to push out an education program.
There's a bigger logic flaw here...How many logical people waste their time with Newsweek polls? I, for one, safely conclude that Newsweek is chock full of readers that are religious zealots.
Can I get a recount?
We could have ended the war by starting on 9/12 with large nuclear weapons. There is no excuse for the US going soft on the Middle East and all of their religious terrorism harboring.
Bring our troops home and put the Middle East back into the stone age.
You bring up a point here that relates to Google's consistency of "opt out"
policies.
They provided an opt-out for Google Print, as referenced in Google v. "The Authors Guild, Associational Plaintiff, and: Herbert Mitgang, Betty Miles and Daniel Hoffman,individually and on behalf of all others similarly".
Google also allows web sites to opt-out of being indexed in their crawls.
It seems somewhat consistent, if not reasonable, to have an opt-out of having topoviews of your property too.
So it would have been impolite to not be a thief... Um, wah.
No, it was impolite for him to be RUDE enough to make an invitation and then withdraw in the form of ALLOWING her to treat only a coward would reneg on their invitation.
As for the enforceability of verbal contracts, you are mistaken. They are every bit as binding as written ones, except that the courts allow more leeway for "meant" instead of "said". If you can prove (recording?) that someone said it, it's binding.
So if he had a digital recording he'd be all set then. Riiight. Shame he didn't have his voice recorder with him. Along with a stack of legal forms.
Yes, I'm suggesting that this woman is an overt thief, as if she had borrowed his coat and refused to return it. She should be forced to pay him, and jailed if this behavior continues - as we would jail a shoplifter of trivially priced items if they continued. If she wises up, the cost is only the $100 she took.
You're comparing apples to oranges.
Re: paid sex, it's unlikely to be illegal in your area (Saudi Arabia?).
No, I'm in the US, pal; however it appears to be the norm in your area, as a quick googling yields "Victoria is the prostitution capital of the Canadian province British Columbia".
It is very clear that your whole post is an implicit ploy to shill BC prostitution as a tourist attraction, and that you are just a cheap bastard who treats someone backing out of a lunch date as if it were shoplifting.
The mods who thought you insightful should have the dishonor of be invited to lunch by you; because surely you won't pay for them, and would have them arrested for shoplifting if you were to make them a loan.
Sorry, the equivocation of a lunch date to a lendee doesn't hold water, and you missed my original point: The lender was dumb.
Her inconvenience forgives her lie? Couldn't she have just said indignantly, "You invited me, you pay"?
Sure she could have, but that's not exactly polite.
This trivial shit is exactly what small claims court is about - to let people solve problems (the judge gives you an answer that will work in the future) without resorting to violence, theft, or character assassination.
The author being as immature and bratty as he was, should not have resorted to litigation to solve his problem, and wasted the time in court for as what you are appropriately categorizing as "trivial shit".
She stole $100 from him, as much as if she'd fished it out of his coat. Should he just let it happen, beat the shit out of her and take it back, expose her theft in front of her friends and co-workers, or take her to court?
You cannot make that equivocation here and take his free will away. At any time he could have said "No, I will not lend you $100." If he wasn't stupid enough to be waving his money around for lending he wouldn't be in this mess. This is not the same as theft. Two wrongs don't make a right here, and his grievances are unjustified.
Let an impartial judge could give her the cheap lesson that a promise is binding, if it fits the parameters of a contract (mainly, something for something, by competent people).
If you really want a contract to be binding, get it in writing. He obviously didn't. You can argue up and down all day with "he-said"/"she-said" verbal agreements being as valid as a written contract, but they still don't have as much weight in the eyes of the law. They are enforcible but it is very hard to prove what is agreed upon.
I'm sure he'd get better results next time if he just spent the $100 directly on sex. It'd be a way to meet a more-honest woman than the one he was dating...
So, you're suggesting he replace his allegedly contractual civil injustice with overtly criminal actions. Wheeee.
I had invited a girl to a charity luncheon where the tickets were $100 apiece, and when she showed up she had "forgotten her checkbook" and needed to borrow the money... Now, don't get ahead of me
You caused your own grief here on so many levels.
1) "Inviting" and "meeting up for" are two different things. If you invite
someone you should be expected to pay. Just because she "forgot her checkbook" is beside the point; she was rationalizing. I'm surprised you didn't just whip out a loan for her to sign and have a lawyer, witness, and notary on speed-dial.
If you're too much of a tightwad,
don't invite girls to $100 charity lunches.
2) Don't lend people money if you want to see it back.
Exactly.
You have to figure out the strategy on your own just like in poker. Your competition (the HR) isn't going to tell you, just like your poker opponents don't have to tell you why your gameplay sucked.
If you imply that because people must deal with incomplete information in poker, people must deal with equally incomplete information in feeding their families. The difference is that people are socially expected to have a job, not to play poker. Abstaining from poker is acceptable; abstaining from being employed gets one branded a bum. Is there a necessary connection between the two?
I wasn't suggesting that you are abstaining from being employed. The process of getting actually getting hired is a game (See Negotiation theory, or the Noel Smith-Wenkle Salary Negotiation Method), just like dating and developing other more complex social interactions.
In poker, bluffing and withholding information can be a key part of a successful strategy; what I am referring to is equivalent in job interviewing. Life is a superset of many games, and getting hired does require tactics.
Except the article is about employers who refuse to give candidates the information with which to improve themselves. Where should this information come from?
Poker is another game of incomplete information as well.
People don't ask nor care how much you got paid on your work experience, and places will be far more likely to take you for free or very little.
They do if its your most recent job. If they know what you previously made is often
the starting point for your salary negotiation. Voluntary work is a good way to start a career, but you might have to pay bills some day.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you cite one instance where sticking your head in the sand like an ostrich has saved you from imminent danger?
MS and Novell have a set of agreements to protect each other from each other.
Sure. That's what legal documents are for.
Linux advocates scouring legal documents for violations is less useful than me trying to scour my bathroom.
Leave the legal docs to the lawyers, and let Linux advocates resume geeking as usual while speaking high Klingon
and dressing up as furries.
The party of small government has disappeared, and has been replaced by the new and improved "Spend & Spend" Republican Party. If we had been a little less compassionate (read: pansified) we could have nuked the right parts of the Middle East and the spending would have significantly less. Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia all have to go.
Instead of giving me a 12 to n step HOWTO, write a robust installer.
Where I went to high school, the odds are pretty good that this "training exercise" could have gone bad, and some of the students who have snuck their own handguns and shot back at them for real.
This could have gone a lot worse.
Yeah, and as an employee who has taken quite a few technical interviews it comes across like Shockley (a eugenics whackjob) brainteasers that are still in use today at Amazon, Microsoft and Google See: http://www.amazon.com/How-Would-Move-Mount-Fuji/dp /0316778494 .
The sad part about it is that most interviewees don't even realize they are being patronized.
You don't trust us. We don't trust you; and that is why employee retention is so difficult.
Employers need to grow up, and show a little respect for their prospective employees.
Today, we have nothing left to fight over, so we must imagine property to kill and enslave each other for.
Have you seen Weblo yet?
There was some V-Worlds scheme like this years ago too.
Not only can we imagine it, we can text our peers and blog about it too.
> Wrong. Bad press in the YRO section of slashdot? Sure. You fail to see the scope of the problem. How about the bad press in CNN? http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/30/technology/browser 0130/index.htm
The NY Times?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/magazine/23googl e.html?ex=1303444800&en=972002761056363f&ei=5090
or the BBC?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4645596.stm
No, the scope of this isn't just here on Slashdot.
China is running a two-faced capitalist regime' (worldly capitalistic, internally Communist).
If Google decides its presence in China isn't profitable they will pull out.
(The juice has to be worth the squeeze, and if the Chinese gov't has its way, it won't)
Their stock price *may* fall. They've had enough bad press with the whole China/censorship thing that pulling out may be considered as a stop-loss. You cannot predict the market reaction to this move.
With the cash reserves Google has, they can afford to pull out of any country they want.
Even the shrewdest of investors would gladly see that Google would want to do business where it is easiest to do so most profitably.
So long China!
"Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The trouble-makers. The round heads in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They're not fond of rules, and they have no respect for the status-quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify, or vilify them. But the only thing you can't do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do." - Jack Kerouac
Technology arrives to the masses in a curve, the first being early adopters,
the middle being somewhat savvy people, and inevitably the the laggards.
By the time every laggard has access to the technology it will be an expected
commodity. A good example of this is the telephone.
If the broadband is "too hard to use", it wouldn't have ever taken off and made it past the early adopters.
Making technology a commodity is more important than trying to push out an education program.
Looks like I'll have to look to India for my gold farming.
Can't they just restrict their manufacturing to 3 hours a day too?
There's a bigger logic flaw here...How many logical people waste their time with Newsweek polls? I, for one, safely conclude that Newsweek is chock full of readers that are religious zealots. Can I get a recount?
We could have ended the war by starting on 9/12 with large nuclear weapons.
There is no excuse for the US going soft on the Middle East and all of their
religious terrorism harboring.
Bring our troops home and put the Middle East back into the stone age.
They provided an opt-out for Google Print, as referenced in Google v. "The Authors Guild, Associational Plaintiff, and: Herbert Mitgang, Betty Miles and Daniel Hoffman,individually and on behalf of all others similarly".
Google also allows web sites to opt-out of being indexed in their crawls.
It seems somewhat consistent, if not reasonable, to have an opt-out of having topoviews of your property too.
So it would have been impolite to not be a thief... Um, wah.
No, it was impolite for him to be RUDE enough to make an invitation and then
withdraw in the form of ALLOWING her to treat only a coward would reneg on their
invitation.
As for the enforceability of verbal contracts, you are mistaken. They are every bit as binding as written ones, except that the courts allow more leeway for "meant" instead of "said". If you can prove (recording?) that someone said it, it's binding.
So if he had a digital recording he'd be all set then. Riiight. Shame he didn't have
his voice recorder with him. Along with a stack of legal forms.
Yes, I'm suggesting that this woman is an overt thief, as if she had borrowed his coat and refused to return it. She should be forced to pay him, and jailed if this behavior continues - as we would jail a shoplifter of trivially priced items if they continued. If she wises up, the cost is only the $100 she took.
You're comparing apples to oranges.
Re: paid sex, it's unlikely to be illegal in your area (Saudi Arabia?).
No, I'm in the US, pal; however it appears to be the norm in your area, as a quick googling yields "Victoria is the prostitution capital of the Canadian province British Columbia".
It is very clear that your whole post is an implicit ploy to shill BC prostitution as a tourist attraction, and that you are just a cheap bastard who treats someone backing out of a lunch date as if it were shoplifting.
The mods who thought you insightful should have the dishonor of be invited to lunch by you; because surely you won't pay for them, and would have them arrested for shoplifting if you were to make them a loan.
Sorry, the equivocation of a lunch date to a lendee doesn't hold water, and you missed my original point: The lender was dumb.
Her inconvenience forgives her lie? Couldn't she have just said indignantly, "You invited me, you pay"?
Sure she could have, but that's not exactly polite.
This trivial shit is exactly what small claims court is about - to let people solve problems (the judge gives you an answer that will work in the future) without resorting to violence, theft, or character assassination.
The author being as immature and bratty as he was, should not have resorted to litigation to solve his problem, and wasted the time in court for as what you are appropriately categorizing as "trivial shit".
She stole $100 from him, as much as if she'd fished it out of his coat. Should he just let it happen, beat the shit out of her and take it back, expose her theft in front of her friends and co-workers, or take her to court?
You cannot make that equivocation here and take his free will away. At any time he could have said "No, I will not lend you $100." If he wasn't stupid enough to be waving his money around for lending he wouldn't be in this mess. This is not the same as theft. Two wrongs don't make a right here, and his grievances are unjustified.
Let an impartial judge could give her the cheap lesson that a promise is binding, if it fits the parameters of a contract (mainly, something for something, by competent people).
If you really want a contract to be binding, get it in writing. He obviously didn't. You can argue up and down all day with "he-said"/"she-said" verbal agreements being as valid as a written contract, but they still don't have as much weight in the eyes of the law. They are enforcible but it is very hard to prove what is agreed upon.
I'm sure he'd get better results next time if he just spent the $100 directly on sex. It'd be a way to meet a more-honest woman than the one he was dating...
So, you're suggesting he replace his allegedly contractual civil injustice with overtly criminal actions. Wheeee.
You caused your own grief here on so many levels.
1) "Inviting" and "meeting up for" are two different things. If you invite someone you should be expected to pay. Just because she "forgot her checkbook" is beside the point; she was rationalizing. I'm surprised you didn't just whip out a loan for her to sign and have a lawyer, witness, and notary on speed-dial. If you're too much of a tightwad, don't invite girls to $100 charity lunches.
2) Don't lend people money if you want to see it back.
3) If anyone here has been slighted pal, its her.
Withstanding of the usual anti-RIAA sentiment, are the police a bunch of pansies that now take raiding orders directly from litigious collectives?
This should be a civil matter people, not criminal.
Trial and error, and changing your strategy.
Exactly. You have to figure out the strategy on your own just like in poker. Your competition (the HR) isn't going to tell you, just like your poker opponents don't have to tell you why your gameplay sucked.
I wasn't suggesting that you are abstaining from being employed. The process of getting actually getting hired is a game (See Negotiation theory, or the Noel Smith-Wenkle Salary Negotiation Method), just like dating and developing other more complex social interactions.
In poker, bluffing and withholding information can be a key part of a successful strategy; what I am referring to is equivalent in job interviewing. Life is a superset of many games, and getting hired does require tactics.
Poker is another game of incomplete information as well.
They do if its your most recent job. If they know what you previously made is often the starting point for your salary negotiation. Voluntary work is a good way to start a career, but you might have to pay bills some day.