Each and every time I've worked at a company, I have done my best. But still I totally disagree with your reasoning that this is related directly with how much I care about the company having a particular name.
I've had reasons I wanted a particular job that had nothing to do the company but to do with location and working hours. If I was hiring, I'd be asking something along those line because I'd want to know how to get the best work from them. I have found without exception that the best way to convince someone to give you want you want (in this case, their best performance at work) is to find out something they want and make sure it's perfectly clear to them how you will help them get it.
If I wanted to hire someone based on technical skill and they didn't have much of an answer to that question I'd get to know them at work and help them develop one. I've been a team leader before, not being involved in hiring but my performance being judged on how well other people worked.
As an example, one young guy who was there just to get paid and totally lacked interest in the actual work wanted someday to own and operate a small business. So I talked to him about much we follow our habits and some of the habits he would need to acquire to operate that business. When he didn't see a part of his job as important enough to be diligent, I would talk to him about profitability and how that task affected the business as a whole. Last I heard he was second in charge of that section. It could have just been a dead end job to him and he a dead weight in the company, now it's a stepping stone for him and a benefit to the company.
I would regard the answers to "Why are you here?" and "What do you want in the future?" to be absolutely necessary to the efficient running of a business. Otherwise you're just trusting to luck that the incentives you offer are enough to motivate and keep your workers. I make it a point to find out this stuff from my fellow workers even though I'm not in charge now, simply because my performance is affected by the performance of the team and I don't want unmotivated workers to impact my ability to negotiate my pay and conditions.
Hint: I don't want to employ someone that turns up for the money. I want someone that's actively interested in some aspect of the job, can talk passionately about it, will have fun doing it. It makes the whole team happier.
I've had jobs that I was totally uninterested in before taking it on. However I refuse to accept less than diligence and excellence from myself, regardless of the job. If you have an inquiring mind there are not many things that aren't interesting if you find out enough about it. If something is uninteresting, it can be interesting to find a faster, more productive way of doing it so you don't have to spend so much time on it. If it's out of your power to improve the process, it can be interesting to get to know the people you're working with and help them stay focused on the task at hand if they find it uninteresting.
Mind you, I'm in the process of transitioning from employment to contracting, partly so I can specialize in the work I like.
I had a job for about 5 years that I wanted because it was close to home and had shift hours that fit in with my families needs. Not exactly an ideal scripted answer but one that kept me being a reliable employee there, the best they'd had in my position.
However, taking them separately, I think both copyright and copyleft are useful and (in very broad terms) A Good Thing (TM).
How it is possible to think of copyleft separately to copyright since it depends on it? Some people think of copyleft being anti-copyright or overturning it, but I disagree. It may overturn the traditional use of it to artificially limit supply to create a business model, but it doesn't overturn the constitutional purpose of copyright, which is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". I'd say copyleft is doing that quite well, wouldn't you? I think it's a very good justification of copyright.
Though I would like to see a huge reduction both the length of copyright/left terms and the penalties and powers set up in this area of law.
Below I have copied your post, omitting the first paragraph and changing the word stealing to copying. As you can see, your argument is intact in my version except for the assertion that copying is stealing. By doing this, I have demonstrated that calling copying stealing does not contribute at all to the substance of your post.
My questions to you are:
1) Since you must know the use of the word stealing is contentious and you similarly must know that your argument does not depend on it in any way, what possible reason other than trolling could you have for using the term stealing in this context?
2) If you have a reason other than trolling, since I have now demonstrated that your argument does not require this inflammatory word, will you now stop using the word stealing to describe copying in order that we can have a reasonable discussion about copyright that doesn't get hijacked by arguments about the definition of stealing?
Please note that I am fine with people disapproving of copyright infringement, just not using blatantly antagonistic terminology to discuss it. This issue is more important than that. You can see some posts by me that explain my position on this issue here: http://www.wpfnewbie.com/2010/08/29/is-software-piracy-stealing/
Big media would rather avoid the elephant in the room and use piracy as the scapegoat for their broken business model. What I said above about not inhibiting someone else from accessing that material is a real game-changer. One that takes their old business model of controlling both content and distribution and renders it outdated and comparably inconvenient to consumers.
Consumers know what they'd like to see in response from big media, better pricing (Since you're no longer paying for the manufacturing of physical media, or the take from retailers and distributors), in a format that is versatile, agnostic and accessible to the consumer. Study after study quite clearly states that people are willing to pay a reasonable price for content as opposed to copying it.
Rather than address their own failings and the thought that their business model broken for close to twenty years, big media would rather cut their own throats through unpopular campaigns, dirty politics, blatant lying and launching an expensive, pointless campaign against their own (potential) customers. Amazingly the only outcome of all of this has been an increase in piracy and how readily people will accept it as an alternative. Somehow big media in the process legitimized piracy in the eyes of the public.
That's nonsense and you know it, copyleft is still a compelling idea even in the absence of copyright because getting the source is far, far preferable...
Copyleft licenses have no legal force without copyright. Without copyright there is public domain and secret, nothing else. Even if you release the source for your own code, without copyright law and a copyleft license nobody has to distribute source for their changes.
I think one major difference was that tapes and especially recordings from the radio sounded pretty poor (especially second and third generation copies) - and tapes wear out.
these days the kids barely know what a CD is and are fine getting low-quality mp3s from online services. [and hard drives and mp3 players fail]
What's the difference again? Just that copying and distribution has become more efficient, which works in the media companies favour as well, not just copyright violators. How many truck drivers do they have to pay to deliver all the music sold on itunes?
The problem is that software only has virtual scarcity, don't expect people to be willing to pay for it and it is foolish to try to base an economy on it.
Yes, the real value of software to an economy is the production that is increased or made possible by it's use, not the sale of copies of it. Productive software is capital to the user. As such, I see FOSS and commodity hardware as the expansion of capitalist opportunity to everyone, even though not everyone will choose to be productive with software, some will only consume.
Like the Nationals here in Australia, a vote for National is a vote for the Liberal Party (conservatives), same as the US, a vote for the Tea Party is a vote for the Republicans. It's just a ploy to get disenfranchised Republican voters to vote Republican without realising it.
Do you seriously think there is anyone voting for a National candidate that doesn't know they are in coalition with the Liberals? As for the tea party situation, do you realize that there is no political party called the "Tea Party" and that tea party candidates run as Republicans? Nobody is voting Republican without knowing it by supporting a tea party candidate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement
From the third paragraph:
The Tea Party movement is not a national political party; polls show that most Tea Partiers consider themselves to be Republicans, and the movement's supporters have tended to endorse Republican candidates.
Since it seems that you aren't at all interested in informing yourself on the topic, don't you think it would be best if you refrained from commenting? If you must comment, though, couldn't you pretend to be a New Zealander?
Didn't we get rid of the 'cause' for divorce thing, and now the only cause for divorce is wanting one?
Legally yes. However, it may surprise you to learn that people get married usually do so because they want to be married. Therefore many people do not divorce without cause even though they legally can. In fact, many people who get divorced probably had no desire to do so before their trust was betrayed.
Saying that it is 'wrong' to sleep with someone else and that it should therefore cost everything the 'cheater' has is such a backwards idea.
I'd say it's a better idea than giving the majority of assets to the woman by default, which is the case now if you have children. If you break any other contract there are penalties, why should marriage be free of obligation?
Sexual conduct should have nothing to do with a marriage contract.
If you are swingers, then fair enough. If you enter that relationship promising sexual exclusivity there should absolutely be penalties for breaking that. If there are going to be other sexual partners, you need to know so you can protect yourself from disease.
Although I am an Australian, we do have a similar problem of unconstitutional government. If you really need the federal government to do something the constitution doesn't allow for (and most would argue that control of nukes should stay with the federal government, not the states) the solution is to amend the constitution, not ignore it.
SOPA was written by corporations, for corporations. A different set of corporations might be able to prevent its passing. What's missing in this picture is any consideration of The People.
No, that different set of corporations you mention is aiming to prevent the passing of SOPA by informing "The People" about it and hoping "The People" do something.
On top of this, it is a bit harsh to label people who were not in the workforce and became disabled, as 'people who are doing it because of benefits', while that many be true in many cases, our knowledge of disabilities, especially mental disabilities is increasing every day. As such many of these people may be 'legitimate'.
The parent poster said "the major one being the cutting of welfare benefits which encouraged non-employable people to seek out disabled classification". This would include people who would have been classified as disabled but didn't bother because they were getting benefits anyway. When the unemployment benefits were cut, those people applied for disability classification. I don't think the parent was criticizing them but saying the disability rate was under reported previously.
I didn't know having a shorter distance to the store was a fundamental right of the crippled.
If the store owner put the parking space there, it is their property rights that are relevant, if the law says they have to, it is a legislated right. Either way, the disabled have a right to that space and the able-bodied do not. Nothing to do with "fundamental rights".
I've never seen anyone use "Murder is not stealing" to justify murder, or "Stealing is not murder" to justify stealing. I have seen many, many people use "Copyright infringement is not stealing" in an attempt to justify copyright infringement.
You could argue that copyright infringement is not justified by the fact that it is not stealing. Instead, you call differentiating infringement and theft "this stupid distinction". It is not stupid to use the correct words to describe an action. If infringement is stealing, it should rightfully be a criminal offense just as stealing is. This is certainly what the **AA's would like and it becomes much harder to argue against if we accept the false premise that infringement is stealing.
Remember that although we are not in a court this is still a legal discussion. We are discussing not just what the law is but what it should be. The **AA's go to considerable effort to equate infringement with theft. This is a deliberate lie on their part. If we allow this lie to influence lawmakers decision making we are likely to get some very bad results from that. It is necessary to vigorously oppose this falsehood that states that copying is theft. It is not, regardless of whether it is justified or not.
So now users have this virtual land that isn't dedicated to a single purpose and can change at the drop of a hat from producing (or consuming) kitten videos to committing virtual crimes to emailing your mom and back again.
My mom had no idea what that guy was doing to those kittens, she was found not guilty and I think you should stop bringing it up.
Who is to decide what is enough? You? Me? The Federal Govt?
For some people, they work it out like this: The most anyone should be allowed to have is a little bit more than what I have (or think I might be able to get in the future). I am excellent and industrious, my wealth has been morally gained. It would be impossible to be much better than me, so people who gain much more than me are gaming the system or stealing it somehow. People who have much less than me are either lazy, or it wasn't their fault and the people with more than me have an obligation to take care of them.
My eyes were opened to this thinking when I heard a multimillionaire relative (who had worked hard but had received a substantial kick-start via inheritance) criticizing the greed of billionaires.
The core principle of socialism is that the means of production are owned by the people, thus no private entities. You're neatly proving the statement that the right routinely label anything they don't like socialist.
So until private ownership is completely abolished nothing can be called socialist. Thus we can not oppose socialism until we are completely and irreversibly subjugated by it. Insidious but clever.
Slashdot Mirror
Each and every time I've worked at a company, I have done my best. But still I totally disagree with your reasoning that this is related directly with how much I care about the company having a particular name.
I've had reasons I wanted a particular job that had nothing to do the company but to do with location and working hours. If I was hiring, I'd be asking something along those line because I'd want to know how to get the best work from them. I have found without exception that the best way to convince someone to give you want you want (in this case, their best performance at work) is to find out something they want and make sure it's perfectly clear to them how you will help them get it.
If I wanted to hire someone based on technical skill and they didn't have much of an answer to that question I'd get to know them at work and help them develop one. I've been a team leader before, not being involved in hiring but my performance being judged on how well other people worked.
As an example, one young guy who was there just to get paid and totally lacked interest in the actual work wanted someday to own and operate a small business. So I talked to him about much we follow our habits and some of the habits he would need to acquire to operate that business. When he didn't see a part of his job as important enough to be diligent, I would talk to him about profitability and how that task affected the business as a whole. Last I heard he was second in charge of that section. It could have just been a dead end job to him and he a dead weight in the company, now it's a stepping stone for him and a benefit to the company.
I would regard the answers to "Why are you here?" and "What do you want in the future?" to be absolutely necessary to the efficient running of a business. Otherwise you're just trusting to luck that the incentives you offer are enough to motivate and keep your workers. I make it a point to find out this stuff from my fellow workers even though I'm not in charge now, simply because my performance is affected by the performance of the team and I don't want unmotivated workers to impact my ability to negotiate my pay and conditions.
Hint: I don't want to employ someone that turns up for the money. I want someone that's actively interested in some aspect of the job, can talk passionately about it, will have fun doing it. It makes the whole team happier.
I've had jobs that I was totally uninterested in before taking it on. However I refuse to accept less than diligence and excellence from myself, regardless of the job. If you have an inquiring mind there are not many things that aren't interesting if you find out enough about it. If something is uninteresting, it can be interesting to find a faster, more productive way of doing it so you don't have to spend so much time on it. If it's out of your power to improve the process, it can be interesting to get to know the people you're working with and help them stay focused on the task at hand if they find it uninteresting.
Mind you, I'm in the process of transitioning from employment to contracting, partly so I can specialize in the work I like.
I had a job for about 5 years that I wanted because it was close to home and had shift hours that fit in with my families needs. Not exactly an ideal scripted answer but one that kept me being a reliable employee there, the best they'd had in my position.
However, taking them separately, I think both copyright and copyleft are useful and (in very broad terms) A Good Thing (TM).
How it is possible to think of copyleft separately to copyright since it depends on it? Some people think of copyleft being anti-copyright or overturning it, but I disagree. It may overturn the traditional use of it to artificially limit supply to create a business model, but it doesn't overturn the constitutional purpose of copyright, which is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". I'd say copyleft is doing that quite well, wouldn't you? I think it's a very good justification of copyright.
Though I would like to see a huge reduction both the length of copyright/left terms and the penalties and powers set up in this area of law.
Agreed.
So copyleft provides an argument for copyright then? If that's what you mean, I agree.
My questions to you are:
1) Since you must know the use of the word stealing is contentious and you similarly must know that your argument does not depend on it in any way, what possible reason other than trolling could you have for using the term stealing in this context?
2) If you have a reason other than trolling, since I have now demonstrated that your argument does not require this inflammatory word, will you now stop using the word stealing to describe copying in order that we can have a reasonable discussion about copyright that doesn't get hijacked by arguments about the definition of stealing?
Please note that I am fine with people disapproving of copyright infringement, just not using blatantly antagonistic terminology to discuss it. This issue is more important than that. You can see some posts by me that explain my position on this issue here: http://www.wpfnewbie.com/2010/08/29/is-software-piracy-stealing/
Big media would rather avoid the elephant in the room and use piracy as the scapegoat for their broken business model. What I said above about not inhibiting someone else from accessing that material is a real game-changer. One that takes their old business model of controlling both content and distribution and renders it outdated and comparably inconvenient to consumers.
Consumers know what they'd like to see in response from big media, better pricing (Since you're no longer paying for the manufacturing of physical media, or the take from retailers and distributors), in a format that is versatile, agnostic and accessible to the consumer. Study after study quite clearly states that people are willing to pay a reasonable price for content as opposed to copying it.
Rather than address their own failings and the thought that their business model broken for close to twenty years, big media would rather cut their own throats through unpopular campaigns, dirty politics, blatant lying and launching an expensive, pointless campaign against their own (potential) customers. Amazingly the only outcome of all of this has been an increase in piracy and how readily people will accept it as an alternative. Somehow big media in the process legitimized piracy in the eyes of the public.
That's nonsense and you know it, copyleft is still a compelling idea even in the absence of copyright because getting the source is far, far preferable...
Copyleft licenses have no legal force without copyright. Without copyright there is public domain and secret, nothing else. Even if you release the source for your own code, without copyright law and a copyleft license nobody has to distribute source for their changes.
I think one major difference was that tapes and especially recordings from the radio sounded pretty poor (especially second and third generation copies) - and tapes wear out.
these days the kids barely know what a CD is and are fine getting low-quality mp3s from online services. [and hard drives and mp3 players fail]
What's the difference again? Just that copying and distribution has become more efficient, which works in the media companies favour as well, not just copyright violators. How many truck drivers do they have to pay to deliver all the music sold on itunes?
The problem is that software only has virtual scarcity, don't expect people to be willing to pay for it and it is foolish to try to base an economy on it.
Yes, the real value of software to an economy is the production that is increased or made possible by it's use, not the sale of copies of it. Productive software is capital to the user. As such, I see FOSS and commodity hardware as the expansion of capitalist opportunity to everyone, even though not everyone will choose to be productive with software, some will only consume.
Like the Nationals here in Australia, a vote for National is a vote for the Liberal Party (conservatives), same as the US, a vote for the Tea Party is a vote for the Republicans. It's just a ploy to get disenfranchised Republican voters to vote Republican without realising it.
Do you seriously think there is anyone voting for a National candidate that doesn't know they are in coalition with the Liberals? As for the tea party situation, do you realize that there is no political party called the "Tea Party" and that tea party candidates run as Republicans? Nobody is voting Republican without knowing it by supporting a tea party candidate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement
From the third paragraph:
The Tea Party movement is not a national political party; polls show that most Tea Partiers consider themselves to be Republicans, and the movement's supporters have tended to endorse Republican candidates.
Since it seems that you aren't at all interested in informing yourself on the topic, don't you think it would be best if you refrained from commenting? If you must comment, though, couldn't you pretend to be a New Zealander?
Didn't we get rid of the 'cause' for divorce thing, and now the only cause for divorce is wanting one?
Legally yes. However, it may surprise you to learn that people get married usually do so because they want to be married. Therefore many people do not divorce without cause even though they legally can. In fact, many people who get divorced probably had no desire to do so before their trust was betrayed.
Saying that it is 'wrong' to sleep with someone else and that it should therefore cost everything the 'cheater' has is such a backwards idea.
I'd say it's a better idea than giving the majority of assets to the woman by default, which is the case now if you have children. If you break any other contract there are penalties, why should marriage be free of obligation?
Sexual conduct should have nothing to do with a marriage contract.
If you are swingers, then fair enough. If you enter that relationship promising sexual exclusivity there should absolutely be penalties for breaking that. If there are going to be other sexual partners, you need to know so you can protect yourself from disease.
Actually, it's plumbing that causes divorce. If women were occupied carrying water from the well, they wouldn't have time for divorce.
australia doesn't have a constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Australia
/. is news for nerds, not news for uninformed morons. You are at the wrong site.
Although I am an Australian, we do have a similar problem of unconstitutional government. If you really need the federal government to do something the constitution doesn't allow for (and most would argue that control of nukes should stay with the federal government, not the states) the solution is to amend the constitution, not ignore it.
SOPA was written by corporations, for corporations. A different set of corporations might be able to prevent its passing. What's missing in this picture is any consideration of The People.
No, that different set of corporations you mention is aiming to prevent the passing of SOPA by informing "The People" about it and hoping "The People" do something.
On top of this, it is a bit harsh to label people who were not in the workforce and became disabled, as 'people who are doing it because of benefits', while that many be true in many cases, our knowledge of disabilities, especially mental disabilities is increasing every day. As such many of these people may be 'legitimate'.
The parent poster said "the major one being the cutting of welfare benefits which encouraged non-employable people to seek out disabled classification". This would include people who would have been classified as disabled but didn't bother because they were getting benefits anyway. When the unemployment benefits were cut, those people applied for disability classification. I don't think the parent was criticizing them but saying the disability rate was under reported previously.
I didn't know having a shorter distance to the store was a fundamental right of the crippled.
If the store owner put the parking space there, it is their property rights that are relevant, if the law says they have to, it is a legislated right. Either way, the disabled have a right to that space and the able-bodied do not. Nothing to do with "fundamental rights".
It's only going to become a problem in phase 2 when sharp spikes leap out of the ground and puncture the tyres of cars without an electronic tag.
No need to go for the tyres, go for the feet. That way, you know they are now disabled, no need for a ticket.
I've never seen anyone use "Murder is not stealing" to justify murder, or "Stealing is not murder" to justify stealing. I have seen many, many people use "Copyright infringement is not stealing" in an attempt to justify copyright infringement.
You could argue that copyright infringement is not justified by the fact that it is not stealing. Instead, you call differentiating infringement and theft "this stupid distinction". It is not stupid to use the correct words to describe an action. If infringement is stealing, it should rightfully be a criminal offense just as stealing is. This is certainly what the **AA's would like and it becomes much harder to argue against if we accept the false premise that infringement is stealing.
Remember that although we are not in a court this is still a legal discussion. We are discussing not just what the law is but what it should be. The **AA's go to considerable effort to equate infringement with theft. This is a deliberate lie on their part. If we allow this lie to influence lawmakers decision making we are likely to get some very bad results from that. It is necessary to vigorously oppose this falsehood that states that copying is theft. It is not, regardless of whether it is justified or not.
So now users have this virtual land that isn't dedicated to a single purpose and can change at the drop of a hat from producing (or consuming) kitten videos to committing virtual crimes to emailing your mom and back again.
My mom had no idea what that guy was doing to those kittens, she was found not guilty and I think you should stop bringing it up.
Who is to decide what is enough? You? Me? The Federal Govt?
For some people, they work it out like this: The most anyone should be allowed to have is a little bit more than what I have (or think I might be able to get in the future). I am excellent and industrious, my wealth has been morally gained. It would be impossible to be much better than me, so people who gain much more than me are gaming the system or stealing it somehow. People who have much less than me are either lazy, or it wasn't their fault and the people with more than me have an obligation to take care of them.
My eyes were opened to this thinking when I heard a multimillionaire relative (who had worked hard but had received a substantial kick-start via inheritance) criticizing the greed of billionaires.
The core principle of socialism is that the means of production are owned by the people, thus no private entities. You're neatly proving the statement that the right routinely label anything they don't like socialist.
So until private ownership is completely abolished nothing can be called socialist. Thus we can not oppose socialism until we are completely and irreversibly subjugated by it. Insidious but clever.
Seems absurd, but here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
Choose your own light bulbs? I'm so sick of this idiocy. Making light bulbs more efficient is not tyranny.
An interesting point, yet the government has not changed the efficiency of a single light bulb.
I can see the circuit breaker cut out usually in less than 30 seconds, and I consider myself fairly skilled at talking at their level.
Judge your skill by results. It's the only thing that matters.