A "work for hire" (sometimes expressed as "work made for hire") is an exception to the general rule that the person who actually creates a work is the legally-recognized author of that work. According to copyright law in most countries, if a work is "made for hire", the employer - not the employee - is considered the legal author. The employer may be a corporation or an individual.
The employee doesn't own this; the corporation does.
How the hell did you get modded up? This is a blatant anti-Bush troll. There are no fact or figures to back any of your statements up - I'd like to know how the number of illegal immigrants has increased since 2000, how the number illegally employed in the physical labor industries such as construction has risen, examples of federal grants to corporations, how the number of H1-B visas granted annually has been increased, and how Bush has cut my salary.
If you want to make anti-Bush statements, fine. That's your prerogative. But if you're not going to back up your windy rhetoric with some facts, figures, and examples, you're nothing more than a troll. It's ridiculous that you're not modded as such.
Humans are shortsighted by nature. See, e.g.: personal retirement savings vs. current individual debt levels. A vast majority of Americans, despite knowing that their life expectancy is somewhere between 10 and 30 years beyond a "retirement age" of 65, do not have an appreciable savings to support themselves with, but live "extravagant" lives by many measures.
Sixty-nine percent of workers said they and/or their spouse had some savings for retirement - that's the highest level since 1994.
But more than half said the total value of their savings and investments were less than $25,000, not including the value of their home. And a majority of workers said they expect they will need less than 70 percent of their pre-retirement income.
Not really. To bring your analogy more in line with what's happening here: you print 100 photographs from the net, put text for one of your business' ads all over them, and hand them out freely to anyone who wants to look at the photo.
Google likely wouldn't be doing this if they don't intend to stick ads on it. So they're using (possibly) copyrighted works in conjunction with advertising to make money, without the permission of the copyright holder.
Um... if I steal something that costs 90$, and return it with a 10% restocking fee, so I only get 81$, how exactly am I bearing the brunt of the cost? The store is still out 81$. (Same applies if I bought something that was 10$, and swapped the 10$ and 90$ items UPC codes - the store would then be out 71$.) The store, in turn, is going to pass that loss on as many others have said through increased prices.
You're essentially making the argument that this happened because the chance was approximately 1%, and not 0.0001%. You go on to say that "If the odds were one in ten thousand the 100-launch odds are less than 1%," the implication being that with a chance of only 1% we would never experience the foam falling off. You seem to be arguing that things will happen at 1%, and also won't happen at 1%, which doesn't make any sense... Please explain?
"shut your fucking ignorant loudmouth up before you embarass yourself more."
"Go soil yourself, retard"
Uhh, yeah... you sound JUST LIKE all the sysadmin's I deal with. Every day, it seems like a better and better idea to get rid of the "AC" ability to post.
Okay, I can't believe you didn't get a response to that.
I did a quick search on google and can't find an answer to this... please tell me you're kidding about that existing in the EULA? (Is there even a EULA on a digital camera?) I mean, it appears to be sarcastic, but we've seen some pretty crazy EULA's before.
Whatever job you do, there are a certain number of people who do the same thing as you, but better.
The only thing I can add is: one reason to consider "dressing it up" a bit at work (which is the reason I choose to do so, obviously) has to do with being noticed. Keep in mind, as parent said, that there are a hundred others who can do what you do. If you want to move up, get the raise, be the "top dog" or whatever -- do something to set yourself apart from the others doing the same job. It doesn't have to have anything to do with appearance; you could get your MBA, broaden your vocabulary, etc... just happens that changing the way you dress is about the easiest way to break out of that group of 100...
I think his point also has something to do with the sheer volume of taxes we pay. If you had the distinct displeasure of writing a check for approximately 30% of your gross annual income in a single day to the government every year, the point seems to be that you'd be pretty annoyed and more likely to do something about it, whereas right now they take that 30% out over the course of the year through each check. Is 30% of your check (say $600 in tax on $2000 pay) noticeable? Yeah. Is it a little more noticeable if it was all at once ($15,600 on $52,000) instead? I think so.
"Take a hike pal."
"(Read aging white urban professional crowd)"
"If you are willing to lick shoes to immigrate to America"
"you jumped through hoops to achieve immigrant status and everyone knows it."
"If you dont like it, go back to where you came from"
Wow. He presents a valid argument, you do a bunch of namecalling in response. Bravo, dipshit -- took some balls to post that AC.
Anyway, I don't care if my money gets stolen, as I'll be getting it back.
You should care. The costs investigating the theft to try and return the money to you, and the possible subsequent loss to the bank if they never recover (but refunded to you) are built into your bank fees, interest rates, etc. Less theft = lower costs for banks = lower costs for consumers.
What about the morality of throwing shit in your face that you don't want?
So... you want the content, and you want it free, but you don't want the ads that pay for the content? It's really a question of preference, as to how you accept the ads that pay for the content you want to view. I don't find popups that spawn only on page load that annoying -- close the window, no more ad. Ads integrated into the page layout, on the other hand, never go away. (Please hold off on the ridiculous suggestions of turning off images.)
Slashdot Mirror
The employee doesn't own this; the corporation does.
I think the assumption that each of the 14,500 letters he sent was a response to one of the 16,200 he received might not be correct ;)
How the hell did you get modded up? This is a blatant anti-Bush troll. There are no fact or figures to back any of your statements up - I'd like to know how the number of illegal immigrants has increased since 2000, how the number illegally employed in the physical labor industries such as construction has risen, examples of federal grants to corporations, how the number of H1-B visas granted annually has been increased, and how Bush has cut my salary.
If you want to make anti-Bush statements, fine. That's your prerogative. But if you're not going to back up your windy rhetoric with some facts, figures, and examples, you're nothing more than a troll. It's ridiculous that you're not modded as such.
Why couldn't it be?
Not really. To bring your analogy more in line with what's happening here: you print 100 photographs from the net, put text for one of your business' ads all over them, and hand them out freely to anyone who wants to look at the photo.
Google likely wouldn't be doing this if they don't intend to stick ads on it. So they're using (possibly) copyrighted works in conjunction with advertising to make money, without the permission of the copyright holder.
3%, on a stock priced at approximately $5.10 per share, is statistical noise.
No no, my friend. That is not a bulk shredder. This is a bulk shredder.
You mean like this guy?
Um... if I steal something that costs 90$, and return it with a 10% restocking fee, so I only get 81$, how exactly am I bearing the brunt of the cost? The store is still out 81$. (Same applies if I bought something that was 10$, and swapped the 10$ and 90$ items UPC codes - the store would then be out 71$.) The store, in turn, is going to pass that loss on as many others have said through increased prices.
"They would have to have highly compensated you for this agreement."
... paying you $1,000,000.00 a year? I signed my non-compete for a lot less than that. I think Lee's gonna be just fine.
Like, oh, I don't know
You're essentially making the argument that this happened because the chance was approximately 1%, and not 0.0001%. You go on to say that "If the odds were one in ten thousand the 100-launch odds are less than 1%," the implication being that with a chance of only 1% we would never experience the foam falling off. You seem to be arguing that things will happen at 1%, and also won't happen at 1%, which doesn't make any sense ... Please explain?
Hmm...
... you sound JUST LIKE all the sysadmin's I deal with. Every day, it seems like a better and better idea to get rid of the "AC" ability to post.
"Um I actually run a server farm for a living."
"shut your fucking ignorant loudmouth up before you embarass yourself more."
"Go soil yourself, retard"
Uhh, yeah
If you ever get married (and stay that way), you'll always be someones last choice :)
Not strictly true. US Citizens can also use birth certificates and such, depending on where you're going. See http://travel.state.gov/travel/tips/brochures/broc hures_1229.html
I'm pretty sure that editor incompetence has long since been exposed ;)
"accounted for four of every four surveillance orders"
"or about ten out of every nine"
I was going to ignore it after the first one, but two in one article? C'mon AP, what sort of debacle is this?
Okay, I can't believe you didn't get a response to that.
I did a quick search on google and can't find an answer to this ... please tell me you're kidding about that existing in the EULA? (Is there even a EULA on a digital camera?) I mean, it appears to be sarcastic, but we've seen some pretty crazy EULA's before.
I couldn't agree more.
Whatever job you do, there are a certain number of people who do the same thing as you, but better.
The only thing I can add is: one reason to consider "dressing it up" a bit at work (which is the reason I choose to do so, obviously) has to do with being noticed. Keep in mind, as parent said, that there are a hundred others who can do what you do. If you want to move up, get the raise, be the "top dog" or whatever -- do something to set yourself apart from the others doing the same job. It doesn't have to have anything to do with appearance; you could get your MBA, broaden your vocabulary, etc ... just happens that changing the way you dress is about the easiest way to break out of that group of 100 ...
So why wouldn't simply running a checksum on the pieces (in addition to the hash on the file) solve this problem? Isn't this what bittorrent does?
I think his point also has something to do with the sheer volume of taxes we pay. If you had the distinct displeasure of writing a check for approximately 30% of your gross annual income in a single day to the government every year, the point seems to be that you'd be pretty annoyed and more likely to do something about it, whereas right now they take that 30% out over the course of the year through each check. Is 30% of your check (say $600 in tax on $2000 pay) noticeable? Yeah. Is it a little more noticeable if it was all at once ($15,600 on $52,000) instead? I think so.
"Take a hike pal."
"(Read aging white urban professional crowd)"
"If you are willing to lick shoes to immigrate to America"
"you jumped through hoops to achieve immigrant status and everyone knows it."
"If you dont like it, go back to where you came from"
Wow. He presents a valid argument, you do a bunch of namecalling in response. Bravo, dipshit -- took some balls to post that AC.
Anyway, I don't care if my money gets stolen, as I'll be getting it back.
You should care. The costs investigating the theft to try and return the money to you, and the possible subsequent loss to the bank if they never recover (but refunded to you) are built into your bank fees, interest rates, etc. Less theft = lower costs for banks = lower costs for consumers.
What about the morality of throwing shit in your face that you don't want?
So... you want the content, and you want it free, but you don't want the ads that pay for the content? It's really a question of preference, as to how you accept the ads that pay for the content you want to view. I don't find popups that spawn only on page load that annoying -- close the window, no more ad. Ads integrated into the page layout, on the other hand, never go away. (Please hold off on the ridiculous suggestions of turning off images.)
It's not a programming language.
It's a markup language.
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/prog.html