If you can't recognize sarcasm, you aren't thinking hard enough. Don't take yourself so seriously.
The term "activist judges" is almost always use as "a ruling that produces case law that I don't like", even if there is constitutional basis for that case law. When it comes to public domain works not being able to go back under copyright protection it is case law, not statute, but there is very valid constitutional reasoning.
No, international treaty means that your copyright will be honored under the laws of the other country in that country. To prosecute someone in the United States, you have to file a case in US District Court under Title 17, not under the Berne Convention.
If Egypt retaliates for something like this, they would be viewed as violating the treaties by every other state, and be subject to significant sanctions. Not to mention, they are still trying to get back lots of antiquities from all those other countries.
To make this work for them here in the United States, we only need to make three little changes to our constitution.
First get rid of that silly "limited times" part. That might mess up their plans a little.
Then we need to append "and unrelated asshats" to the "authors and inventors" part.
And third, we need to add something to overturn those activist judges that say that once something goes into the public domain, it can't be copyrighted.
It might surprise you to learn that Bill and Melinda agree with you. That is why they are trying to directly support those heros and encourage others to do so as well.
The foundation at that time paid at the low end of the scale. They did bring everyone up a little towards the higher end of the scale after a while, and there wasn't really a cap on how much you could make if you kept getting high performance raises. The best performers from the early days were making close to twice as much when the program ended 5 years later.
They also realized that these employees were not able to acrue stock options, so around 2002 they started becoming extremely generous with the 401(k) program.
They also had a 3 to 1 matching program for donations to charities. Many of the employees have formed groups to start their own foundations.
No, I didn't work for the foundation, but my girlfriend did.
I don't recall hearing that linux was actually used, simply for the reasons you gave. But I can tell you that many within the library program were pro-linux (which is not th same as anti-MS). The AC was also talking about 1999 which was very near the start of the program and might have even been during the GCTA timeframe, before it was folded into the BMGF. They were still trying to figure out what they were doing at that point.
You might also want to consider that the grant to Main to buy student's laptops was for Macs. Not exactly the most pro-microsoft option.
You say "nepotistic" like that is always a bad thing.
There are several ways that he is the most extremely qualified for this position.
Chairs in family foundations are not open application positions, they are appointments by the benefactors. The benefactors appoint those that they trust. Bill and Melinda trust Bill Sr.
Then consider who was responsible for the starting of the Gates Center for Technology Access (the earlier foundation), it was Bill Sr. and Mary Gates that convinced Bill to start his philanthropy before he retired. Bill III was and still is working full time, so it was dad who offered to run things from the basement of his home. The ONLY reason reason that Bill III was willing to start the foundation when he did was because he truted his dad.
As for the 170K, you have to remember that it is III that is the billionaire, not Sr. While I am sure that he is quite generous with his dad, why not actually pay him a reasonable salary for the work that he is doing instead?
The 2003 compensation for their entire executive team was $744k. Bill's dad gets $170k, Patty Stonesifer (CEO) does not draw a salary.
The reference would be their filed tax documents and the recent time magazine article. Not quite sure why you can make unfounded statements, but we have to back up ours. It would have been easy enough for you to check out yourself in any case.
The highest paid people at the foundation are the political and public health experts, not the administrators. There really aren't very many levels of administration there either. As far as I know they are still in that three story office building on the eastlake (they are building a new larger one near Seattle Center) there isn't room for all that levels of administration.
Grants are how all foundations work. And yes, sometimes the grant is in the form of a simple check. Sometimes they buy specific supplies. The research grants are most definitely money, but it is money with strings attached.
Well, his giving certainly seems to be aimed at getting results. I'm not so sure what is wrong with that.
Look at the vaccinations he buys. They are saving something like 300,000 lives a year. Why not give money to the places where it will do the most good?
Have you ever owned stock in your life? Bill owns mostly growth stock, and he doesn't sell much. Do you know how much taxable income there is on a stock that doesn't pay a dividend and you do not sell?
My girlfriend worked for the foundation for 4 years, and I got to see the passion that Bill and Melinda feel for these issues. They have held those AIDS babies in their arms in those clinics in Africa. They really do care.
I don't like how Bill got his money, but I have complete respect for what he is doing with it.
Bill did not want to get into the charity work till he retired. His mother had been after him since early on.
At this point, he is very involved in all the major decisions and directs them on a daily basis. Melinda is there much of thetime, as is Bill Sr.
Melinda goes on several trips a year to find out about the work that the foundation is doing, and the whole family has spent time in clinics in Africa.
As for the funding, it is a foundation, not a regular charity. All the money in the foundation comes from Bill and Melinda, and they are still giving. Do you remember that one time microsoft dividend at the beginning of the year? They gave the entire dividend to the foundation.
They really aren't in it to look good. The only tend to go public on their gifts when they want to bring attention to an issue.
Check the history of the Gates Foundation re AIDS. He has funded research that the goverments were unwilling to touch. Overlooked issues is what the foundation seems most interested in.
Let's see, you can deduct up to 50% of your taxable income in charitable contributions, and he already gave the entire MS dividend of $3 billion to his foundation. His taxable income in any given year is certain to be under $1 billion. So do some math. The vast majority of his charitable contributions are taxed.
He has given very close to half his fortune to charity, and he is quite passionate about global health issues.
I did not suggest harassment, whech the judge would have problems with. I suggested reporting actual violations of the labor laws. Judges are generally in favor of reporting illegal activity.
Every company I have ever worked for has violated all sorts of labor laws. Start giving them a pile of minor regulatory headaches.
Then make sure you have a good shark for a lawyer. Make sure he has a technologically savy partner or associate that can understand the CVS and gateway issues.
Then countersue. They may have infinite resources compared to you, but they also have much deeper pockets to go after. If they are vunerable on this point, your lawers will be more than happy to go after that big paycheck.
If all you do is try and defend yourself, then they will steamroll all over you.
Correct spelling and grammar are certainly helpful in getting your message across, and should therefore be encouraged.
On the other hand, if you successfully make your point using bad grammar you are still ahead of those that have good grammar but broken logic circuits. Or even worse, those that don't seem to have reading comprehension.
Of course, everything that can be done to make your communications clearer will work in your favor (unless you are trying for ambiguity) so it is in your best interests to at least try to improve your communications skills.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can't recognize sarcasm, you aren't thinking hard enough. Don't take yourself so seriously.
The term "activist judges" is almost always use as "a ruling that produces case law that I don't like", even if there is constitutional basis for that case law. When it comes to public domain works not being able to go back under copyright protection it is case law, not statute, but there is very valid constitutional reasoning.
No, international treaty means that your copyright will be honored under the laws of the other country in that country. To prosecute someone in the United States, you have to file a case in US District Court under Title 17, not under the Berne Convention.
If Egypt retaliates for something like this, they would be viewed as violating the treaties by every other state, and be subject to significant sanctions. Not to mention, they are still trying to get back lots of antiquities from all those other countries.
To make this work for them here in the United States, we only need to make three little changes to our constitution.
First get rid of that silly "limited times" part. That might mess up their plans a little.
Then we need to append "and unrelated asshats" to the "authors and inventors" part.
And third, we need to add something to overturn those activist judges that say that once something goes into the public domain, it can't be copyrighted.
No problem.
It might surprise you to learn that Bill and Melinda agree with you. That is why they are trying to directly support those heros and encourage others to do so as well.
The foundation at that time paid at the low end of the scale. They did bring everyone up a little towards the higher end of the scale after a while, and there wasn't really a cap on how much you could make if you kept getting high performance raises. The best performers from the early days were making close to twice as much when the program ended 5 years later.
They also realized that these employees were not able to acrue stock options, so around 2002 they started becoming extremely generous with the 401(k) program.
They also had a 3 to 1 matching program for donations to charities. Many of the employees have formed groups to start their own foundations.
No, I didn't work for the foundation, but my girlfriend did.
I don't recall hearing that linux was actually used, simply for the reasons you gave. But I can tell you that many within the library program were pro-linux (which is not th same as anti-MS). The AC was also talking about 1999 which was very near the start of the program and might have even been during the GCTA timeframe, before it was folded into the BMGF. They were still trying to figure out what they were doing at that point.
You might also want to consider that the grant to Main to buy student's laptops was for Macs. Not exactly the most pro-microsoft option.
You say "nepotistic" like that is always a bad thing.
There are several ways that he is the most extremely qualified for this position.
Chairs in family foundations are not open application positions, they are appointments by the benefactors. The benefactors appoint those that they trust. Bill and Melinda trust Bill Sr.
Then consider who was responsible for the starting of the Gates Center for Technology Access (the earlier foundation), it was Bill Sr. and Mary Gates that convinced Bill to start his philanthropy before he retired. Bill III was and still is working full time, so it was dad who offered to run things from the basement of his home. The ONLY reason reason that Bill III was willing to start the foundation when he did was because he truted his dad.
As for the 170K, you have to remember that it is III that is the billionaire, not Sr. While I am sure that he is quite generous with his dad, why not actually pay him a reasonable salary for the work that he is doing instead?
The 2003 compensation for their entire executive team was $744k. Bill's dad gets $170k, Patty Stonesifer (CEO) does not draw a salary.
The reference would be their filed tax documents and the recent time magazine article. Not quite sure why you can make unfounded statements, but we have to back up ours. It would have been easy enough for you to check out yourself in any case.
The highest paid people at the foundation are the political and public health experts, not the administrators. There really aren't very many levels of administration there either. As far as I know they are still in that three story office building on the eastlake (they are building a new larger one near Seattle Center) there isn't room for all that levels of administration.
Grants are how all foundations work. And yes, sometimes the grant is in the form of a simple check. Sometimes they buy specific supplies. The research grants are most definitely money, but it is money with strings attached.
Well, his giving certainly seems to be aimed at getting results. I'm not so sure what is wrong with that.
Look at the vaccinations he buys. They are saving something like 300,000 lives a year. Why not give money to the places where it will do the most good?
Have you ever owned stock in your life? Bill owns mostly growth stock, and he doesn't sell much. Do you know how much taxable income there is on a stock that doesn't pay a dividend and you do not sell?
And you call me the retard?
Yes, why don't you research the situation before you make your statements?
Where *doesn't* he push software? Where *doesn't* his foundation spend money?
How about that grant to help buy notebooks for every student in Maine? Did you happen to notice what OS was on those notebooks?
Well said!
My girlfriend worked for the foundation for 4 years, and I got to see the passion that Bill and Melinda feel for these issues. They have held those AIDS babies in their arms in those clinics in Africa. They really do care.
I don't like how Bill got his money, but I have complete respect for what he is doing with it.
Bill did not want to get into the charity work till he retired. His mother had been after him since early on.
At this point, he is very involved in all the major decisions and directs them on a daily basis. Melinda is there much of thetime, as is Bill Sr.
Melinda goes on several trips a year to find out about the work that the foundation is doing, and the whole family has spent time in clinics in Africa.
As for the funding, it is a foundation, not a regular charity. All the money in the foundation comes from Bill and Melinda, and they are still giving. Do you remember that one time microsoft dividend at the beginning of the year? They gave the entire dividend to the foundation.
They really aren't in it to look good. The only tend to go public on their gifts when they want to bring attention to an issue.
Check the history of the Gates Foundation re AIDS. He has funded research that the goverments were unwilling to touch. Overlooked issues is what the foundation seems most interested in.
Let's see, you can deduct up to 50% of your taxable income in charitable contributions, and he already gave the entire MS dividend of $3 billion to his foundation. His taxable income in any given year is certain to be under $1 billion. So do some math. The vast majority of his charitable contributions are taxed.
He has given very close to half his fortune to charity, and he is quite passionate about global health issues.
Where did I mention retaliation?
I did not suggest harassment, whech the judge would have problems with. I suggested reporting actual violations of the labor laws. Judges are generally in favor of reporting illegal activity.
Every company I have ever worked for has violated all sorts of labor laws. Start giving them a pile of minor regulatory headaches.
Then make sure you have a good shark for a lawyer. Make sure he has a technologically savy partner or associate that can understand the CVS and gateway issues.
Then countersue. They may have infinite resources compared to you, but they also have much deeper pockets to go after. If they are vunerable on this point, your lawers will be more than happy to go after that big paycheck.
If all you do is try and defend yourself, then they will steamroll all over you.
Correct spelling and grammar are certainly helpful in getting your message across, and should therefore be encouraged.
On the other hand, if you successfully make your point using bad grammar you are still ahead of those that have good grammar but broken logic circuits. Or even worse, those that don't seem to have reading comprehension.
Of course, everything that can be done to make your communications clearer will work in your favor (unless you are trying for ambiguity) so it is in your best interests to at least try to improve your communications skills.