How about an employee and an employer agree to an amount of pay, a schema for that pay be it salary or hourly, and a set of duties. Then if either side decides at a later point the agreement is no longer suitable, the relationship can be severed.
Well, in their defense this is just judicial fiat, not a law. So, you know, it's just some cocksucker judge imposing his will illegally - that makes it much better, after all.
This is called an oxymoron. Look it up. The real problem which is triggering your idiocy is that "liberal" now means communist and "conservative" now means religious douchebag. I think you'll find by and large that people here are communist like you when it suits their needs (e.g. anti-Microsoft), but generally tend towards libertarian.
The laws are f'ing stupid, especially in Communist California. If you don't think you're being paid enough for the work you do, fucking leave. It's as simple as that.
It is ridiculous. Even done manually, have 20 people work on it and they can do it in a few weeks. Realistically, hire 2 Smart People who know how to program, even if not in Cobol, and it can probably be done in 1 week. There is no conceivable electronic payment system they can use that can't have this done in 2 weeks. The problem just isn't that hard.
As for the governator, do you think he cares about his meager governor pay all that much? He's loaded.
And the alternative is to promise nothing and not get elected. Or you can pander to unrealistic and immoral requirements from people who just want Free Shit, give it to them, and find out that socialism starts to break down after a while. Watch what happens in Europe over the next 10 years to see the eventual outcome. "Oh, shit, we are broke!".
-1: 2001 called, it wants its state of affairs back.
Seriously, you do know IIS works extremely well now, right? Maybe you should crawl out of the "bat cave" (parent's basement) once in a while and keep touch with modern technology.
How many people used Java for business critical stuff when it was still maturing back in the 1.1-1.2 days? How many people immediately trusted Linux back in the mid-90's? If they can make Mono rock solid it will take off because.NET is crazy sweet. Java = nice..NET = very nice.
Why? It's easy enough to say you do this, but _why_ do you do this? Your business users game testers? Or are you buying 2 year old motherboards with 2 year old integrated graphics? Even 965G chipsets should be plenty adequate for business use.
People break all sorts of laws every day. The fact is if the law is loose enough, it can get anyone. He specifically never broke any laws, of course. This is a provable fact. If you can find evidence of William Gates having been convicted of any kind of felony, I'd love to see it. Microsoft only ever got slapped on the wrist for conduct that is not immoral but which is entirely up to a wide swathe of interpretation. Ask one man if a crime was committed, he'll say no - ask his neighbour, he'll say yes. It's a wishy-washy set of regulations.
The only fact here is that you and the open source zealot nutjobs are dinosaurs. Here on SlashDot you have some degree of GroupThink so you think the rest of the world shares your opinions. They don't. Most of the world thinks Gates is just dandy. So rail at success and capitalism all you want, but don't pretend you hold a majority (or correct, for that matter) opinion.
You all keep ranting the same shit, but your "facts" are actually just bitter whiny opinions. He stifled no innovation, he did no illegal activity, and nobody but you pathetic nerds and his whining competitors hates him anymore. The simple fact is you lost. Most people don't hate Bill Gates. In 100 years when QuietLagoon and WhinyPenguin3 are dead his legacy will live on because he will have made a huge impact on the world. Your legacy will be a bunch of pathetic crybabying on SlashDot about a "convicted monopolist" being a "gangster" who committed logs of "illegal activity" and now is trying to "save his conscience". PS: In that last sentence I just summarized every crybaby post in this thread.
Seriously, he enver used physical force or fraud to get his money, so he's fine by me. Monopoly laws are a relic of the steel and oil industries, which are physically limited resources. They make no sense in the realm of Intellectual Property. To the victor go the spoils, and the only people who hate Gates are the dirty, greasy SlashDweeb Linux droids and his competitors who have lost to him.
This is because Java is way behind, at least Xfire/CXF/Axis2. You should be using Metro/Glassfish. They have full support for web standards including those used by WCF. You can even use Kerberos authentication from Unix to a Windows web service, which is pretty hot.
I always associated trolling with those Kibo morons back in the Usenet heyday. They always thought they were pretty subtle and quite ingenius, but I think I've shit more clever things.
You can't write whatever the fuck you want, sorry. You can't threaten to do bodily harm to someone. You can't slander/libel them. These are the rules. If it was just them saying "XYZ is a stupid **** and she's a horrible lawyer and I hate her and I hope she catches AIDS and dies" then I'd agree with you. Claiming she has herpes (unless she does, that wasn't spelled out in article and would slightly change my opinion on this particular) and saying he's going to rape her is a different ballpark.
If he's allowed to say those things, then her father/brother/boyfriend should be allowed to brutally murder the AC to protect her from rape (he did say he'd rape her). We (society) afford you rights and place limits on those rights, in exchange we protect you from your fellow man. Them's the rules. "God" didn't give us any rights, your rights are, in practice, what society decides your rights are. Often I disagree with society, but not in this case.
You, too, are an idiot. Mayhaps someone should find your identity then repeatedly post lies and slander about you all over the interwebs. They could mail your employer, your family, make up and say all kinds of crazy shit. Accuse you of being a pedophile, of having AIDS, of having been molested by your parents when you were 25, etc... What, you're going to just cry over some "interwebs" postings?
I'm all for free speech, but society has deemed slander, libel, and direct threats of physical harm are not free speech. I agree, oddly enough. The alternative is people say what they want, and if someone tracks them down and beats them to death for it we, society, will just decide not to protect you. Maybe that's the ideal world. People say what they want where they want, and other people are free to murder them for it.
You're an idiot. Slander, libel, and threats are illegal. Sounds like all three were present in the postings. No civilized person would think that these things shouldn't be illegal. And if they are legalized, it should be e.g. their father/brother/boyfriend/husband's right to mercilessly savage the person who did it. So OK - let's make all speech of any sort legal. Let's also revoke rights of protection from physical reprisal from the speaker in cases of threats, libel, or slander.
I don't know, maybe because stealing is wrong? The correct response to "I don't like your content distrubution model" is a refusal to purchase the product until rectified. Stealing it and then justifying it as "getting one over on the fat-cats" is still just stealing. And don't get me wrong - I've done it in the past. I just didn't make up ridiculous excuse after ridiculous justification to make myself sound like Robin Fucking Hood when I did it.
Public libraries are a remnant of a non-digital age. Each and every library had to buy a copy of the book, and then the patrons had to wait to check it out. Many didn't bother to wait, or wanted to own a hard copy. Hence, publishing still worked. With a digital copy, this model doesn't work. Now, you "anti-DRM, anti-copyright" types claim that they should change their business models and that they are dinosaurs. Actually, you are the dinosaurs. The library model doesn't work now. The only viable model to ensure compensation for production of work in the entertainment and software content fields is by copyright protection. This protection should be reasonable, unlike it is currently, but it should and must exist.
The Internet is not a "public library of movies" because libraries paid the content owner for their content, and because there were limitations which still encouraged people to buy the content. Really, your position is indefensible as anything other than you wanting to steal free shit from people who did the work to produce it. You're just too much of a dinosaur to realize that content production moved to the digital realm is still work, it's a creation, and people make their living from it. Ergo we, the people, afford them some limited (again, this is the part that's broken) protection. Their right to that copyright protection is as valid as any "right" you think you have, and certainly more valid than the right to free shit you think you have.
Rather than attempt to make sense of your inane brainfart of an analogy so that I can refute it (I would start with "(digital) product vs. (physical) service" but to go any further would require a series of big fat books), I'll defend my own point of view.
Here's your first problem. Digital media is a service. You are paying to use content someone else has produced. If you do not pay for the content, the producer of the media will not recoup his investment and will not make profit, and hence will not continue to make said content. You can't seem to wrap your head around the concept that there might be a product with no production cost but where your stealing it costs the producer opportunity cost.
I'm not sure what you're asking proof for. You seem to want evidence that if people download music, movies, or software instead of paying for it they are cutting into the producer's profit. I don't need any proof, by definition the sentence is correct. Even though many people wouldn't buy the product anyway, there's some nonzero percent of people who download media who would buy it if they couldn't download it. I feel no need to prove anything because it's an obvious truism. Now, is it true to the extent the media companies claim? Of course not.
I find all the "then find a new business model!" arguments tedious and silly. It's really a childish argument put forth by people who want free shit. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but then they have the audacity to claim it's the studios' fault and that they, the pirates, are the moral ones. I'd say both sides of the argument are largely in the wrong. Thieves on one side, greedy corporate scum who buy politicians on the other. I'm marginally on the side of the thieves in terms of lesser of two evils, but barely.
Yeah. I haven't seen it yet, but the Ledger thing is a good study in sociology. I have no idea how good he was in it, but he could have stunk up the screen (at least to some degree) and people would still claim it was the best performance since Raging Bull. It's sad that he died and all, but it's going to be really annoying come awards time with all the teary tributes. It would sure suck to be someone who did a better performance but get stuck against him come Oscar time.
"But my performance was better - more nuanced, a more complex character, a deeper plot to exploit, etc...!!?!"
Legality is indeed not morality, and there's nothing wrong with smoking weed unless you drive intoxicated, neglect any kids you may have, or cause other harm to others due to it. But copyright infringemnt in some cases is fairly easy to argue as morally wrong. The "I want free shit" people use the facile comparison to theft, i.e.:
If I steal a CD, I'm depriving someone of it's use! That's why it's wrong, but a download of a CD doesn't deprive anyone of anything!
Seriously - give me a fucking break. They put millions and millions of dollars into producing e.g. Batman DK. You could use the same facile argument to claim it's OK to stiff your gardener after he's done your lawn. "But the work is done, I'm depriving him of nothing if I don't pay him after he did the work! I mean, he already did the work, so by not paying him it costs him nothing!". In short, it's a retarded argument. The only problem with copyright is that hollywood and RIAA have bought laws making it far more of an issue than it should be.
There should be copyright laws, but it should be e.g. "$100 fine" and not "prison time, and a few hundred thousand dollars and/or a huge civil judgement".
Alas, look at the massive quantity of Spain-produced high quality (and/or) great movies! You can count them on your fingers pretty easily. While there are some good ones, it's a pitifully small number. SlashDweebs are all a bit retarded on the copyright issue. Copyright = good, it just needs to be reigned in a little (well, a lot) in the US. Here in the US the Big Money have bought oo many ridiculous laws. It should be illegal to download copyrighted material, but just say a $100 fine or something per infraction. The real problem is the buying of laws by Hollywood, not the concept of copyright protection.
Also, you have no "right" to download movies or software owned by someone else. To claim so is to denigrate and water down the concept of "rights".
A woman poisoned her husband and he died horribly and she didn't get "decades". A man stabbed a woman to death after sexually assaulting her - he didn't get "decades". Our sentencing priorities are fucking disgusting.
I firmly agree. I think you should do some sort of demonstration to mock the environmentalists and go buy about a dozen CFLs. Lock yourself in a small room and break them all on the floor. Then hang out for a few minutes and breathe real deeply. Then laugh (maniacally, probably for the rest of your newly shortened and crazy life) at the environmentalists when you walk out.
Actually, I pseudo-agree with you. The danger from CFLs is a bit overblown if they're disposed of properly. In fact, they have less of a "mercury footprint" than incandescent bulbs over their lifetime.
But putting it in a computer, which will probably be dumped in a trash can in 5-7 years without a second thought, is just stupid as the grandparent mentions.
Slashdot Mirror
Crazy shit, I know.
Well, in their defense this is just judicial fiat, not a law. So, you know, it's just some cocksucker judge imposing his will illegally - that makes it much better, after all.
...smart people with a liberal philosophy...
This is called an oxymoron. Look it up. The real problem which is triggering your idiocy is that "liberal" now means communist and "conservative" now means religious douchebag. I think you'll find by and large that people here are communist like you when it suits their needs (e.g. anti-Microsoft), but generally tend towards libertarian.
The laws are f'ing stupid, especially in Communist California. If you don't think you're being paid enough for the work you do, fucking leave. It's as simple as that.
As for the governator, do you think he cares about his meager governor pay all that much? He's loaded.
And the alternative is to promise nothing and not get elected. Or you can pander to unrealistic and immoral requirements from people who just want Free Shit, give it to them, and find out that socialism starts to break down after a while. Watch what happens in Europe over the next 10 years to see the eventual outcome. "Oh, shit, we are broke!".
This probably should have been modded
-1: 2001 called, it wants its state of affairs back.
Seriously, you do know IIS works extremely well now, right? Maybe you should crawl out of the "bat cave" (parent's basement) once in a while and keep touch with modern technology.
How many people used Java for business critical stuff when it was still maturing back in the 1.1-1.2 days? How many people immediately trusted Linux back in the mid-90's? If they can make Mono rock solid it will take off because .NET is crazy sweet. Java = nice. .NET = very nice.
Why? It's easy enough to say you do this, but _why_ do you do this? Your business users game testers? Or are you buying 2 year old motherboards with 2 year old integrated graphics? Even 965G chipsets should be plenty adequate for business use.
The only fact here is that you and the open source zealot nutjobs are dinosaurs. Here on SlashDot you have some degree of GroupThink so you think the rest of the world shares your opinions. They don't. Most of the world thinks Gates is just dandy. So rail at success and capitalism all you want, but don't pretend you hold a majority (or correct, for that matter) opinion.
Seriously, he enver used physical force or fraud to get his money, so he's fine by me. Monopoly laws are a relic of the steel and oil industries, which are physically limited resources. They make no sense in the realm of Intellectual Property. To the victor go the spoils, and the only people who hate Gates are the dirty, greasy SlashDweeb Linux droids and his competitors who have lost to him.
This is because Java is way behind, at least Xfire/CXF/Axis2. You should be using Metro/Glassfish. They have full support for web standards including those used by WCF. You can even use Kerberos authentication from Unix to a Windows web service, which is pretty hot.
I always associated trolling with those Kibo morons back in the Usenet heyday. They always thought they were pretty subtle and quite ingenius, but I think I've shit more clever things.
If he's allowed to say those things, then her father/brother/boyfriend should be allowed to brutally murder the AC to protect her from rape (he did say he'd rape her). We (society) afford you rights and place limits on those rights, in exchange we protect you from your fellow man. Them's the rules. "God" didn't give us any rights, your rights are, in practice, what society decides your rights are. Often I disagree with society, but not in this case.
I'm all for free speech, but society has deemed slander, libel, and direct threats of physical harm are not free speech. I agree, oddly enough. The alternative is people say what they want, and if someone tracks them down and beats them to death for it we, society, will just decide not to protect you. Maybe that's the ideal world. People say what they want where they want, and other people are free to murder them for it.
You're an idiot. Slander, libel, and threats are illegal. Sounds like all three were present in the postings. No civilized person would think that these things shouldn't be illegal. And if they are legalized, it should be e.g. their father/brother/boyfriend/husband's right to mercilessly savage the person who did it. So OK - let's make all speech of any sort legal. Let's also revoke rights of protection from physical reprisal from the speaker in cases of threats, libel, or slander.
Indeed, actually it does only use 4 watts under full load. The power problem is with the chipset, not the processor.
I don't know, maybe because stealing is wrong? The correct response to "I don't like your content distrubution model" is a refusal to purchase the product until rectified. Stealing it and then justifying it as "getting one over on the fat-cats" is still just stealing. And don't get me wrong - I've done it in the past. I just didn't make up ridiculous excuse after ridiculous justification to make myself sound like Robin Fucking Hood when I did it.
The Internet is not a "public library of movies" because libraries paid the content owner for their content, and because there were limitations which still encouraged people to buy the content. Really, your position is indefensible as anything other than you wanting to steal free shit from people who did the work to produce it. You're just too much of a dinosaur to realize that content production moved to the digital realm is still work, it's a creation, and people make their living from it. Ergo we, the people, afford them some limited (again, this is the part that's broken) protection. Their right to that copyright protection is as valid as any "right" you think you have, and certainly more valid than the right to free shit you think you have.
Rather than attempt to make sense of your inane brainfart of an analogy so that I can refute it (I would start with "(digital) product vs. (physical) service" but to go any further would require a series of big fat books), I'll defend my own point of view.
Here's your first problem. Digital media is a service. You are paying to use content someone else has produced. If you do not pay for the content, the producer of the media will not recoup his investment and will not make profit, and hence will not continue to make said content. You can't seem to wrap your head around the concept that there might be a product with no production cost but where your stealing it costs the producer opportunity cost.
I'm not sure what you're asking proof for. You seem to want evidence that if people download music, movies, or software instead of paying for it they are cutting into the producer's profit. I don't need any proof, by definition the sentence is correct. Even though many people wouldn't buy the product anyway, there's some nonzero percent of people who download media who would buy it if they couldn't download it. I feel no need to prove anything because it's an obvious truism. Now, is it true to the extent the media companies claim? Of course not.
I find all the "then find a new business model!" arguments tedious and silly. It's really a childish argument put forth by people who want free shit. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but then they have the audacity to claim it's the studios' fault and that they, the pirates, are the moral ones. I'd say both sides of the argument are largely in the wrong. Thieves on one side, greedy corporate scum who buy politicians on the other. I'm marginally on the side of the thieves in terms of lesser of two evils, but barely.
"But my performance was better - more nuanced, a more complex character, a deeper plot to exploit, etc...!!?!"
"He's dead, you dick!"
If I steal a CD, I'm depriving someone of it's use! That's why it's wrong, but a download of a CD doesn't deprive anyone of anything!
Seriously - give me a fucking break. They put millions and millions of dollars into producing e.g. Batman DK. You could use the same facile argument to claim it's OK to stiff your gardener after he's done your lawn. "But the work is done, I'm depriving him of nothing if I don't pay him after he did the work! I mean, he already did the work, so by not paying him it costs him nothing!". In short, it's a retarded argument. The only problem with copyright is that hollywood and RIAA have bought laws making it far more of an issue than it should be.
There should be copyright laws, but it should be e.g. "$100 fine" and not "prison time, and a few hundred thousand dollars and/or a huge civil judgement".
Also, you have no "right" to download movies or software owned by someone else. To claim so is to denigrate and water down the concept of "rights".
A woman poisoned her husband and he died horribly and she didn't get "decades". A man stabbed a woman to death after sexually assaulting her - he didn't get "decades". Our sentencing priorities are fucking disgusting.
Actually, I pseudo-agree with you. The danger from CFLs is a bit overblown if they're disposed of properly. In fact, they have less of a "mercury footprint" than incandescent bulbs over their lifetime.
But putting it in a computer, which will probably be dumped in a trash can in 5-7 years without a second thought, is just stupid as the grandparent mentions.