>The rationale behind copyright agrees that one of the necessary conditions to have Works of Art at all is to have a huge amount of Art and Knowledge accessible to everyone, and the more of those are available, the more new works will be created. In the end the right to copy, to modify and to distribute is a precondition for the creation of Art. On the other hand creation of Art takes time and costs money, so there has to be a way to reimburse the artist. Copyright does that by giving the artist a limited control over his works, e.g. giving him the right to stop copies, modifications and distributions he doesn't condone.
Not sure I follow you there. I think we can call the Mona Lisa art. However, if someone makes a million copies of the Mona Lisa, I don't think more "art" was created. There was no creative involvement in creating those copies... just copying... and it's that creative spark that makes art.
For the CD side: Since the media isn't copyrighted, you can duplicated CD's all day long, but the actual art that is on those CD's is copyrighted, so you can't duplicate that part without the artist's consent... thus the RIAA is pissed.
For the GPL side: Since obtaining the GPL'd code actually requires the copying of the intellectual property over the Internet medium, you're in the same boat. Sure, there's nothing stopping them from copying bits, since those aren't copyrightable... but Copyright law forbids the copying of the code without the "artists" consent. (Which is explicitly given when following the terms of the GPL. Thus the GPL folks are pissed.
I don't see how the two issues are different really. Either you can copy artists work willy-nilly, or you can't.
I totally agree. The core of my point (which I didn't directly address) is that as distasteful in this circumstance as it is, the gov't should not be able to use evidence gained during the comission of a crime to do anything other than obtain a warrant.
And, since that gov't is charged with protecting its citizens from foreign invasion, that they should be taking some sort of action in that direction... even if it is just contacting the foreign gov't and reporting activity that may be a crime in their country.
(Which isn't to say this guy shouldn't have been protecting himself, and definitely should not have been partaking in the activities he was)
I did... and guess what? I wasn't responding to the article. I was responding to the parent post of my posting. We were discussing a general concept in the article... that is, how can you draw the line between what our government is allowed to use and what it isn't.
The reason evidence is thrown out of court if it wasn't collected with a warrant is to servce as an incentive for the government to do its job right, thus protecting our rights in general.
So, if the gov't wants information on something an individual is doing, do they need a warrant? apparently not... they just need to covertly contact someone who is not a citizen, and not in our country... and even then, it might not have to be covert depending on how you read the laws.
While we cannot specifically prosecute this person directly, we might be able to use diplomatic ties and treaties to get the other gov't to prosecute. There is no reason our federal government, whose job includes protecting us from foreign invasion, should tacitly allow that invasion, even if it ends up being for a good cause.
The difference is that the government was prosecuting the burglar already... they were pursuing him for a crime, which means they didn't approve his actions. If they are not going after this guy, then they are approving his actions, and he's effectively working for them, and the evidence is subject to 4th ammendment protections.
Are you sharing your PIN if you don't complete obscure the viewing area when you type it in? How hard do you have to work on your numbers in order not to share them?
What about transitive sharing? I give my social security number to a loan company... they accidentally share the document somehow. You shared it, so you no longer own it... then they "shared" it...
> The problem with this is that we, as a society, have said that discrimination based on age is wrong
Did we say discrimination based on age is wrong for anything, or only for firing old people? We generally require 16 to be able to drive, and 21 to drink, and 18 for contracts, 13 for any sort of outside work, so there's age discrimination right there. We recognize that age is a factor when determining the ability to be responsibile for things
> The 16 year old not being 'responsible' enough to care for a child is not a genetic issue, but instead is caused by a problem legal structure.
But, that's the structure under which that person's 16 year old was raised in. If you raise your child so that at 16 they are earning their own keep and can afford a child of their own, then they can have sex all they want... the point's the same. Live within your sphere of responsibility.
> that's me, being forced by the state, to pay for the mistakes of others. which we can all agree that is wrong
Nope, we can't agree on that at all. You're a human, so you are assumed to be susceptible to the same things other humas are, so in a general sense, others actions as a group can tell us a little about how you are likely to act... you were raised with other people weren't you?
I could write a nice long reasoned response with examples of how other innocent people get screwed by people who think they'll always have a perfect driving record because they've always had one... by people who think they will always be able to handle every situation that comes up with perfect response and clarity under every circumstance, but I don't think it would make a difference. Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance.
So, which innocent should have to pay? The one who already had insurance, and now has higher premiums because of the uninsured motorist? Or the uninsured motorist for not planning responsibility for actions that are foreseeable? Or all taxpayers, so the gov't is now responsible for our actions on the road instead of the individuals.
Out of those choices, I much prefer for the people driving to show financial responsibility for actions that may occur while they're driving.
I think everyone should have some sort of proof of financial responsibility when they drive. Most people can't afford to have enough cash on hand to pay for things as they come up, so in steps the insurance company. Now the problem is how to determine rates... group people. How?
well... 1) We're all mambers of the human group, so we all pay the same rate... which means most people are getting screwed. 2) Look at accident statistics and try to determine sub groups for which we can assign their own risk, and thus set their rates... But because of the limited information we have about all accidents, and about personal information on individuals... and because people lie about their info as well and they won't let the companies monitor them, there's a limit to how granular they can get.
Just deal with it... yeah, in an ideal sense it's wrong. But we live in the real world where things have to actually be able to function.
no there really isn't - all the insurance companies are ageist bigots who charge less for people twice my age with recent at-fault accidents than they charge people my age who have perfect, spotless, driving records - or if there is one I've certainly never heard of them
They are ageist, but that should tell you about just how much of an extra risk your age group is. (I was there not too long ago) They're playing the odds.
Number crunchers have poured through the hundreds of thousands of accidents correlating all kinds of factors, trying to find some measurable way to drop rates without going bankrupt, and no company has been able to make a significant dent in the groups. Insurance companies just can't stay in business without doing that really.
However, I can refer you to a legal insurance agency (I've not yet seen a compulsory insurance statute that didn't list them as a possibility) that would not discriminate against you. => You. You are free, in any state that I've seen, to self-insure. It normally requires having a bond posted somewhere and carrying around certification of that bond. Expensive? hell yes. That's why insurance companies are usually a better deal.
They're aggregating risk of that bond being used among all their customers. Some exceptional ones get screwed... some exceptional ones get away with murder... but on average it works out. That's life.
You will note I objected to the blanket statement, and you're giving specific-case that you have in mind of someone who isn't. Not exactly a level argument eh?
I picked the specific case of the parent poster's response. That poster was referring to his kid, and so did I. in the specific case I made (about sex), I would venture to say nearly no 16 year old is able to have sex responsibly. Nearly enough as to allow others to actually use "no 16 year old"... Since in order to be responsible sex, you have to be able and willing to support the results of an unintended pregnancy, and that's pretty rare for a 16 year old these days.
yup, and those of us under 25 with better driving records than you pay more because of that kind of blanket statement thinking, and quite frankly that should be illegal - if the state is going to require me to have insurance on my vehicle (for good reason) then they should require that my driving record is treated fairly.
Insurance companies have lots of records of accidents, and that's the age they've worked out statistically where the danger is lower... Competitive Insurance rates work by grouping common factors so that they can try to comptetively lower rates while limiting their exposure to actually having to pay out. They have to be able to discriminate based on some things, and being under 25 seems reasonable to me. As long as they can show statistically there is a correlation (causation is largely irrelevant in this case), in order to show they aren't just out to screw folks... then i'm OK with it.
Don't like it? There's a hundred other insurance companies that build their tables in different ways... go get competitive rates from them.. maybe they've found some sub grouping of under-25 year olds for which they can drop rates more.
... so you won't mind your boss tracking you as well, just to ensure you don't call in sick when in fact you just felt like taking a day off to go to the beach or go see a ball game.
Why should my boss care if I'm actually sick or not? Most places I have worked have an actual number of sick days you are allowed... go over that and things get more interesting. There's never an automatic firing or anything, but you start needing doctor's notes, etc to show why you should be allowed to deviate from your workplace agreement.
See, no need to track me =-)
And you won't mind if the DOT tracks you as well with even more sophisticated technology in order to automatically ticket you any and every time you speed, run a red light, or fail to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. The city can also track you and automatically issue parking tickets the INSTANT your meter runs out. And you won't mind your spouse tracking you to make sure you come straight home from work or just to check up on where you've been lately.
And none of these organizations is responsible for my actions. I, however, am responsible for what my kids do legally...
Any of these entities can claim a similar right based on their relationship with you (employer, government, spouse, etc.) And if you don't like it, you can just go find yourself another job, spouse, mode of transportation, and place to live
Employer => nope... you agree to working conditions when you start... if you don't like them, don't agree to them. They are not responsible for you, and so you're right to privacy trumps their potential right to track you.
Gov't => nope... that pesky constitution thing gets in the way there... at least in theory =-(
Until you are 18, you're parent's are responsible for what you do. When they sign that form saying you can have a license, they are also agreeing to be liable for any and all actions you take while driving.
I completely disagree with this - because it's a blanket statement. Some people are mature enough for intimiate relationships by the age of 16 - in that case protected (IE with a condom) sex isn't a problem. i thought you said you taught him about condoms?
It doesn't sound like his child is in a position to have responsible sex. Condoms aren't 100% effective. They break sometimes, they aren't always kept in the proper conditions, applied properly, etc.
The kid is not living on his own, and not providing hit own way, nor I'm guessing is he prepared to do so.
Putting those two together, the kid would be exposing himself to a better than 1 in 50 chance of getting a girl pregnant in good circumstances, and having to deal with the consequences... consequences which would also affect the kid's parent as well.
It would be irresponsible to take an action for which there is an expected response that you are not capable of handling. Wouldn't it? Especially when that response directly affects the life of another.
I agree: trust your teen But: There's a reason auto insurance rates don't drop until you're 25 though... trust your teen to lie to your or be stupid from time to time. Create an environment in which they can talk to you about their screw-ups, but do your part to ensure those screwups aren't as likely to happen also.
How is that informative in the context of the gp poster?
It is pretty obvious that AOL thought they had anonymized the data. They took out the users' names. The fact that they didn't put due diligence into making sure that the searches included couldn't be used to eventually identify the people involved doesn't mean they didn't do anything at all.
Had they released the info with user names, then the Neuremberg "just following orders" thing holds a bit more water.
But given how it actually played out, Neuremberg would have had to involve orders to do something that could have eventually gotten a few of the Jews killed as opposed to actually ordering mass killing.
I've been in a similar situation... and am about to face it again.
The story I was given was that since the child was with a parent, they weren't in danger, and therefore nothing could be done until there was an arrest warrant.
>I dunno. There seemed to be plenty of people on this post yesterday [slashdot.org] that pretty much said 'every problem can be solved with violence'. So I guess they were the ones who breed the kids that are the bully's. Either that, or they raise kids that go postal.
Wow, "some violence can solve some problems" == "violence can solve all problems"?
Sounds a little like some JT logic slipping in there =-)
Sorry, you can't explain away a bankruptcy like that. The credit bureau won't remove the BK from the record, they will only include your note (if they deem it) The company still sees the BK, and you're still off the books.
It's just not that simple.
Around here, fast food restaurants pay minimum wage, and they have hordes waiting to work there. (And most don't speak English natively either)
Some of my friends have moved to try to get into different markets, while this one in particular can't because he can't afford the court costs since there's children from the extra litigious ex.
Some people just get screwed. It happens. Have some compassion. Worst comes to worst, you had some compassion for someone who didn't actually deserve it... yeah, it's a tough world;-)
>he reality is that an *effectively* intelligent person can get a great job in the USA.
So, now we've gone from intelligent to "effectively intelligent". Looks like the reasoning is starting to take on a circular shape...
Hey, some people just get screwed by circumstances... not nearly as many as say they do... but it happens.
>Don't tell me that someone is effectively intelligent if they can't do it for the reasons you sited above.
I don't get it. "Intelligent person" who gets screwed by ex-wife is screwed out of a job because company policy says "bankruptcy = no hire" is not *effectively* intelligent because he can't get the company to change its policy?
>AOL is a dinossaur now. Their market doesn't exist anymore and they stuck upon their past until it was too late.
Or to paraphrase from the press release...
"Well, we made truckloads of money with our access unit before, now we're only making buttloads. Our market is going away, so we need to get another one. Hey, wait, we've got a pretty large market already... lets focus on that."
Contrary to what we'd want to believe... AOL wasn't first to dialup access, nor was it "the Internet" first... their history shows they've got a good chance at making some money for a bit longer.
>The job market nowadays however is worlds better if you at least have something to offer.
Bull I know several people who are very smart, can jump into just about anything, and beat the pants off anyone... with years of experience to show for it. But, because they were managers, and don't have 10 years of experience with version a.b.c of a specific financials package, the hiring company doesn't want to waste their time. Or they make the interview and get rejected because of a bankruptcy 6 years ago that was the fault of an ex-wife. Or since their last job paid them 40% more than the going rates, there's no way they'd be happy at this job. Or, you're "grossly" over qualified and we can't expect that you'd want to stay here long enough to be worthwhile. etc...
Slashdot Mirror
>The rationale behind copyright agrees that one of the necessary conditions to have Works of Art at all is to have a huge amount of Art and Knowledge accessible to everyone, and the more of those are available, the more new works will be created. In the end the right to copy, to modify and to distribute is a precondition for the creation of Art. On the other hand creation of Art takes time and costs money, so there has to be a way to reimburse the artist. Copyright does that by giving the artist a limited control over his works, e.g. giving him the right to stop copies, modifications and distributions he doesn't condone.
Not sure I follow you there.
I think we can call the Mona Lisa art. However, if someone makes a million copies of the Mona Lisa, I don't think more "art" was created. There was no creative involvement in creating those copies... just copying... and it's that creative spark that makes art.
For the CD side: Since the media isn't copyrighted, you can duplicated CD's all day long, but the actual art that is on those CD's is copyrighted, so you can't duplicate that part without the artist's consent... thus the RIAA is pissed.
For the GPL side: Since obtaining the GPL'd code actually requires the copying of the intellectual property over the Internet medium, you're in the same boat. Sure, there's nothing stopping them from copying bits, since those aren't copyrightable... but Copyright law forbids the copying of the code without the "artists" consent. (Which is explicitly given when following the terms of the GPL. Thus the GPL folks are pissed.
I don't see how the two issues are different really.
Either you can copy artists work willy-nilly, or you can't.
So, what's more free than DLink just doing whatever they want?
Must be good since it's giving DLink, as the user, more freedom.
It's also something pilots use to keep charts and such organized and within easy reach while flying
> full House is expected to vote on the bill by the end of the month."
How wude
iTunes 7 allows you to change the video type for your self encoded videos to TV Show now! yay
I totally agree. The core of my point (which I didn't directly address) is that as distasteful in this circumstance as it is, the gov't should not be able to use evidence gained during the comission of a crime to do anything other than obtain a warrant.
And, since that gov't is charged with protecting its citizens from foreign invasion, that they should be taking some sort of action in that direction... even if it is just contacting the foreign gov't and reporting activity that may be a crime in their country.
(Which isn't to say this guy shouldn't have been protecting himself, and definitely should not have been partaking in the activities he was)
> If you would RTFA
I did... and guess what? I wasn't responding to the article. I was responding to the parent post of my posting.
We were discussing a general concept in the article... that is, how can you draw the line between what our government is allowed to use and what it isn't.
The reason evidence is thrown out of court if it wasn't collected with a warrant is to servce as an incentive for the government to do its job right, thus protecting our rights in general.
So, if the gov't wants information on something an individual is doing, do they need a warrant? apparently not... they just need to covertly contact someone who is not a citizen, and not in our country... and even then, it might not have to be covert depending on how you read the laws.
While we cannot specifically prosecute this person directly, we might be able to use diplomatic ties and treaties to get the other gov't to prosecute. There is no reason our federal government, whose job includes protecting us from foreign invasion, should tacitly allow that invasion, even if it ends up being for a good cause.
The difference is that the government was prosecuting the burglar already... they were pursuing him for a crime, which means they didn't approve his actions.
If they are not going after this guy, then they are approving his actions, and he's effectively working for them, and the evidence is subject to 4th ammendment protections.
At least that's how it looks in my head
Just to be a pain =-)
>If you don't want it shared, don't share it
Are you sharing your PIN if you don't complete obscure the viewing area when you type it in? How hard do you have to work on your numbers in order not to share them?
What about transitive sharing? I give my social security number to a loan company... they accidentally share the document somehow. You shared it, so you no longer own it... then they "shared" it...
>Correct - it's nobody's right to own it. You can't own a number.
Can I have your bank account number, pin, and social security number? since you have no right to own them
> The problem with this is that we, as a society, have said that discrimination based on age is wrong
Did we say discrimination based on age is wrong for anything, or only for firing old people?
We generally require 16 to be able to drive, and 21 to drink, and 18 for contracts, 13 for any sort of outside work, so there's age discrimination right there.
We recognize that age is a factor when determining the ability to be responsibile for things
> The 16 year old not being 'responsible' enough to care for a child is not a genetic issue, but instead is caused by a problem legal structure.
But, that's the structure under which that person's 16 year old was raised in.
If you raise your child so that at 16 they are earning their own keep and can afford a child of their own, then they can have sex all they want... the point's the same. Live within your sphere of responsibility.
> that's me, being forced by the state, to pay for the mistakes of others. which we can all agree that is wrong
Nope, we can't agree on that at all. You're a human, so you are assumed to be susceptible to the same things other humas are, so in a general sense, others actions as a group can tell us a little about how you are likely to act... you were raised with other people weren't you?
I could write a nice long reasoned response with examples of how other innocent people get screwed by people who think they'll always have a perfect driving record because they've always had one... by people who think they will always be able to handle every situation that comes up with perfect response and clarity under every circumstance, but I don't think it would make a difference.
Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance.
So, which innocent should have to pay? The one who already had insurance, and now has higher premiums because of the uninsured motorist? Or the uninsured motorist for not planning responsibility for actions that are foreseeable? Or all taxpayers, so the gov't is now responsible for our actions on the road instead of the individuals.
Out of those choices, I much prefer for the people driving to show financial responsibility for actions that may occur while they're driving.
I think everyone should have some sort of proof of financial responsibility when they drive.
Most people can't afford to have enough cash on hand to pay for things as they come up, so in steps the insurance company.
Now the problem is how to determine rates... group people.
How?
well...
1) We're all mambers of the human group, so we all pay the same rate... which means most people are getting screwed.
2) Look at accident statistics and try to determine sub groups for which we can assign their own risk, and thus set their rates... But because of the limited information we have about all accidents, and about personal information on individuals... and because people lie about their info as well and they won't let the companies monitor them, there's a limit to how granular they can get.
Just deal with it... yeah, in an ideal sense it's wrong.
But we live in the real world where things have to actually be able to function.
no there really isn't - all the insurance companies are ageist bigots who charge less for people twice my age with recent at-fault accidents than they charge people my age who have perfect, spotless, driving records - or if there is one I've certainly never heard of them
They are ageist, but that should tell you about just how much of an extra risk your age group is. (I was there not too long ago)
They're playing the odds.
Number crunchers have poured through the hundreds of thousands of accidents correlating all kinds of factors, trying to find some measurable way to drop rates without going bankrupt, and no company has been able to make a significant dent in the groups. Insurance companies just can't stay in business without doing that really.
However, I can refer you to a legal insurance agency (I've not yet seen a compulsory insurance statute that didn't list them as a possibility) that would not discriminate against you. => You.
You are free, in any state that I've seen, to self-insure. It normally requires having a bond posted somewhere and carrying around certification of that bond.
Expensive? hell yes. That's why insurance companies are usually a better deal.
They're aggregating risk of that bond being used among all their customers. Some exceptional ones get screwed... some exceptional ones get away with murder... but on average it works out. That's life.
You will note I objected to the blanket statement, and you're giving specific-case that you have in mind of someone who isn't. Not exactly a level argument eh?
I picked the specific case of the parent poster's response. That poster was referring to his kid, and so did I.
in the specific case I made (about sex), I would venture to say nearly no 16 year old is able to have sex responsibly.
Nearly enough as to allow others to actually use "no 16 year old"... Since in order to be responsible sex, you have to be able and willing to support the results of an unintended pregnancy, and that's pretty rare for a 16 year old these days.
yup, and those of us under 25 with better driving records than you pay more because of that kind of blanket statement thinking, and quite frankly that should be illegal - if the state is going to require me to have insurance on my vehicle (for good reason) then they should require that my driving record is treated fairly.
Insurance companies have lots of records of accidents, and that's the age they've worked out statistically where the danger is lower... Competitive Insurance rates work by grouping common factors so that they can try to comptetively lower rates while limiting their exposure to actually having to pay out.
They have to be able to discriminate based on some things, and being under 25 seems reasonable to me.
As long as they can show statistically there is a correlation (causation is largely irrelevant in this case), in order to show they aren't just out to screw folks... then i'm OK with it.
Don't like it? There's a hundred other insurance companies that build their tables in different ways... go get competitive rates from them.. maybe they've found some sub grouping of under-25 year olds for which they can drop rates more.
... so you won't mind your boss tracking you as well, just to ensure you don't call in sick when in fact you just felt like taking a day off to go to the beach or go see a ball game.
Why should my boss care if I'm actually sick or not?
Most places I have worked have an actual number of sick days you are allowed... go over that and things get more interesting. There's never an automatic firing or anything, but you start needing doctor's notes, etc to show why you should be allowed to deviate from your workplace agreement.
See, no need to track me =-)
And you won't mind if the DOT tracks you as well with even more sophisticated technology in order to automatically ticket you any and every time you speed, run a red light, or fail to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. The city can also track you and automatically issue parking tickets the INSTANT your meter runs out. And you won't mind your spouse tracking you to make sure you come straight home from work or just to check up on where you've been lately.
And none of these organizations is responsible for my actions. I, however, am responsible for what my kids do legally...
Any of these entities can claim a similar right based on their relationship with you (employer, government, spouse, etc.) And if you don't like it, you can just go find yourself another job, spouse, mode of transportation, and place to live
Employer => nope... you agree to working conditions when you start... if you don't like them, don't agree to them. They are not responsible for you, and so you're right to privacy trumps their potential right to track you.
Gov't => nope... that pesky constitution thing gets in the way there... at least in theory =-(
Until you are 18, you're parent's are responsible for what you do. When they sign that form saying you can have a license, they are also agreeing to be liable for any and all actions you take while driving.
Ah, because in the pristine 50s there were fewer parents with strict "under my roof" rules?
I completely disagree with this - because it's a blanket statement. Some people are mature enough for intimiate relationships by the age of 16 - in that case protected (IE with a condom) sex isn't a problem.
i thought you said you taught him about condoms?
It doesn't sound like his child is in a position to have responsible sex. Condoms aren't 100% effective. They break sometimes, they aren't always kept in the proper conditions, applied properly, etc.
The kid is not living on his own, and not providing hit own way, nor I'm guessing is he prepared to do so.
Putting those two together, the kid would be exposing himself to a better than 1 in 50 chance of getting a girl pregnant in good circumstances, and having to deal with the consequences... consequences which would also affect the kid's parent as well.
It would be irresponsible to take an action for which there is an expected response that you are not capable of handling. Wouldn't it? Especially when that response directly affects the life of another.
I agree: trust your teen
But: There's a reason auto insurance rates don't drop until you're 25 though... trust your teen to lie to your or be stupid from time to time. Create an environment in which they can talk to you about their screw-ups, but do your part to ensure those screwups aren't as likely to happen also.
How is that informative in the context of the gp poster? It is pretty obvious that AOL thought they had anonymized the data. They took out the users' names. The fact that they didn't put due diligence into making sure that the searches included couldn't be used to eventually identify the people involved doesn't mean they didn't do anything at all. Had they released the info with user names, then the Neuremberg "just following orders" thing holds a bit more water. But given how it actually played out, Neuremberg would have had to involve orders to do something that could have eventually gotten a few of the Jews killed as opposed to actually ordering mass killing.
I've been in a similar situation... and am about to face it again.
The story I was given was that since the child was with a parent, they weren't in danger, and therefore nothing could be done until there was an arrest warrant.
>I dunno. There seemed to be plenty of people on this post yesterday [slashdot.org] that pretty much said 'every problem can be solved with violence'. So I guess they were the ones who breed the kids that are the bully's. Either that, or they raise kids that go postal. Wow, "some violence can solve some problems" == "violence can solve all problems"? Sounds a little like some JT logic slipping in there =-)
>This is unprecedented action. Why now?
Because MS06-040 patches a more wormy possibility than most previous vulnerabilties?
Sorry, you can't explain away a bankruptcy like that. The credit bureau won't remove the BK from the record, they will only include your note (if they deem it)
;-)
The company still sees the BK, and you're still off the books.
It's just not that simple.
Around here, fast food restaurants pay minimum wage, and they have hordes waiting to work there. (And most don't speak English natively either)
Some of my friends have moved to try to get into different markets, while this one in particular can't because he can't afford the court costs since there's children from the extra litigious ex.
Some people just get screwed. It happens. Have some compassion.
Worst comes to worst, you had some compassion for someone who didn't actually deserve it... yeah, it's a tough world
>he reality is that an *effectively* intelligent person can get a great job in the USA.
So, now we've gone from intelligent to "effectively intelligent". Looks like the reasoning is starting to take on a circular shape...
Hey, some people just get screwed by circumstances... not nearly as many as say they do... but it happens.
>Don't tell me that someone is effectively intelligent if they can't do it for the reasons you sited above.
I don't get it. "Intelligent person" who gets screwed by ex-wife is screwed out of a job because company policy says "bankruptcy = no hire" is not *effectively* intelligent because he can't get the company to change its policy?
>AOL is a dinossaur now. Their market doesn't exist anymore and they stuck upon their past until it was too late. Or to paraphrase from the press release... "Well, we made truckloads of money with our access unit before, now we're only making buttloads. Our market is going away, so we need to get another one. Hey, wait, we've got a pretty large market already... lets focus on that." Contrary to what we'd want to believe... AOL wasn't first to dialup access, nor was it "the Internet" first... their history shows they've got a good chance at making some money for a bit longer.
>The job market nowadays however is worlds better if you at least have something to offer.
Bull
I know several people who are very smart, can jump into just about anything, and beat the pants off anyone... with years of experience to show for it.
But, because they were managers, and don't have 10 years of experience with version a.b.c of a specific financials package, the hiring company doesn't want to waste their time.
Or they make the interview and get rejected because of a bankruptcy 6 years ago that was the fault of an ex-wife.
Or since their last job paid them 40% more than the going rates, there's no way they'd be happy at this job.
Or, you're "grossly" over qualified and we can't expect that you'd want to stay here long enough to be worthwhile.
etc...