Unlike the DMV, a private company can't force you to use their services.
Care to point out where you are forced to use the DMV's services? Remember, operating a motor vehicle on public infrastructure is a privilege and a choice, not a right. You are perfectly free to not have a driver's license.
You're funny. Thinking that a company would actually be held responsible for their actions. Just like Sony was held responsible for their data breach this past summer?
Seriously, the private sector is no longer held accountable for almost anything these days.
The difference is that in capitalism you have the choice of not working for such a company
And this is the largest problem with those that religiously worship capitalism. Whether or not you have the "choice" to work for this company is irrelevant; the fact of the matter is that this bullshit should not be allowed, period. When you start to allow companies to act like total assholes because "people have a choice," then if they get successful, then all the other companies will start to emulate that. Look at what happened with retirement plans: Most companies used to offer pensions, which were great for workers. Then a few removed them and went to the far shittier 401k plan. This was deemed acceptable because "you have the choice to work for a company that provides a pension." Fast forward a few years, and now it's almost impossible to find a company that offers pensions to it's employees, unless they are a union job. So don't give me that bullshit about "choice of working".
When you work in software development, like many other fields, there are times near a release (or whatever milestone) where you have to work a lot of overtime.
No, not true. Furthermore, in most other fields, if you end up working overtime, you're usually compensated for it. There is absolutely NO REASON WHATSOEVER why software engineers should not be compensated for excess overtime.
Competition is great, and I'd be all for Common Carrier rules, but it's not the be-all end all solution. There are many places in the country, most of them rural, which can realistically only support one ISP. Should those people be solely subjected to the whims of their provider?
Go ahead an enact all the pro-competition statues you want. More choices for as many people as we can stand. But make sure that there's a minimum level in place, to benefit the many people who live in rural areas.
Actually, the fact that they are capping the 4G data is evidence in favor of the argument. If they were planning to keep upgrading the network, instead of forgetting about it once the 4G was in place, they wouldn't be capping the data.
From that graph, it looks like AT&T gave far more to Republicans than to Democrats. Furthermore, if that place gets it's data from the place I think it does, then that's not really the company giving money. Anytime a regular person like you or me donates money, we are supposed to list our employer. So when they add things up like this, it's not necessarily that the company itself, under the direction of the CEO gave that money, it's that employees of that company gave money. It's where you get the misleading stat that BP was one of Obama's biggest donors. They weren't, but lots of BP employees decided to give money.
Sucks to be you, that you can't see what's clear in front of your face.
Yes, there is a lot of undeveloped land. Why don't you go take a look at it some time. Tell me how much of it would actually be usable as farmland. And then tell me why the developers would want that land over some nice farmland that just came on the market.
Seriously, you have a head on your shoulders. Use it sometime.
Explain how rock bottom prices for food would provide enough incentive for people to actually go through the risk and the huge capital requirements of farming?
Without those subsidies, the only ones who could actually afford to farm would be the giant corporate farms. I don't really want them to be the only ones that I can get food from.
WTF should we be doing this? It isn't like we have food shortages in the US.
The people who grow the food need to eat, too. Unless you want the only ones who can afford to grow crops to be giant, corporate farms, then farm subsidies should be a good thing. At least better than the alternative.
Again, you are the one that has made the claim that any kind of "undue experimentation" has taken place, and you are the one that has made claim as to how long that period has to be. It is up to you to back up your claims, not me.
I never backpedaled. We have always been talking about a solution. Never once have we not been. Of course, it's easier to call me a troll than to admit your own failure to comprehend what someone is writing.
Well, I suppose you could move to North Korea, then. Enjoy!
Ahh, trolling. Classy. I suppose that means that anything that has a law against it is instantly bad, right?
So you think they came up with the solution in an afternoon over tea?
Maybe. However, I'm not the one trying to assert how they came up with the solution. You are. Thus, you are the one that is assuming.
[Citation needed].
Again, you're the one making the assumption. The onus is on YOU to back it up.
He open-sourced Doom in 2000?
Nobody claimed he did, dumbass. However, if you had actually read the article, and the links provided with it, you'd have seen that Carmack came up with it in 2000, during development of Doom 3. He also presented it at a conference shortly thereafter.
Only if he can't afford a license. If he can, then he doesn't have to waste any time.
So now they have to waste capital and resources. Same fucking problem.
You still haven't proven it's an "obvious" solution
You haven't proven that it's not. So just about everything you've said on that subject is moot.
And yes, the patent does reduce the wasted effort of the second guy re-inventing the first solution - a term which, I notice, you quietly tiptoed away from.
I haven't "tiptoed" away from anything. You, however, have decided that coming up with another, possibly non-ideal solution to the same problem apparently doesn't waste time and effort. Wasn't saving time one of your big justifications for this
Shiat, using a solution is easy. I can use Microsoft Word without ever having to write a line of code. But we're not talking about using a solution... we're talking about inventing the solution, a process which may take months and months of [drumroll] wasted effort.
Wow, talk about a waste of time. This statement has absolutely nothing to do with what is being talked about. Of course we're talking about getting a solution, dumbfuck. Except now, we've taken time and effort to find the ideal and obvious solution, but while doing that, it's revealed that it's patented. So now we've wasted all that time and effort, and now we have to waste even more time and effort trying to invent another, possibly non-ideal solution to the same problem.
Not only have you failed to demonstrate that this invention is non-obvious, but you've also failed to address the wasted effort by people who were coming up with the obvious solution to the problem, but now can't use it due to patents, and have to throw away that effort, and expend more on coming up with another solution.
Slashdot Mirror
Any employer that refuses someone because they don't have a credit history is foolish.
Nice reply, full of idealism. Meanwhile, you're still out of a job.
It is required if you wish to participate in society, and not live in a shack in the middle of the woods.
Credit cards might not be needed, but credit itself definitely is, especially when renting an apartment or buying a house.
Unlike the DMV, a private company can't force you to use their services.
Care to point out where you are forced to use the DMV's services? Remember, operating a motor vehicle on public infrastructure is a privilege and a choice, not a right. You are perfectly free to not have a driver's license.
If this happened to a private company they would be dragged into court and sued to death, or at least be forced to drastically change policies.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You're funny. Thinking that a company would actually be held responsible for their actions. Just like Sony was held responsible for their data breach this past summer?
Seriously, the private sector is no longer held accountable for almost anything these days.
A dozen teenagers being exploited by an employer doesn't worry me much, it's normal for most industries.
And that's a fucking problem. The fact that people consider that "acceptable" is absolutely disgusting.
The difference is that in capitalism you have the choice of not working for such a company
And this is the largest problem with those that religiously worship capitalism. Whether or not you have the "choice" to work for this company is irrelevant; the fact of the matter is that this bullshit should not be allowed, period. When you start to allow companies to act like total assholes because "people have a choice," then if they get successful, then all the other companies will start to emulate that. Look at what happened with retirement plans: Most companies used to offer pensions, which were great for workers. Then a few removed them and went to the far shittier 401k plan. This was deemed acceptable because "you have the choice to work for a company that provides a pension." Fast forward a few years, and now it's almost impossible to find a company that offers pensions to it's employees, unless they are a union job. So don't give me that bullshit about "choice of working".
When you work in software development, like many other fields, there are times near a release (or whatever milestone) where you have to work a lot of overtime.
No, not true. Furthermore, in most other fields, if you end up working overtime, you're usually compensated for it. There is absolutely NO REASON WHATSOEVER why software engineers should not be compensated for excess overtime.
Because a private company would never be caught doing something like this. Nope. They are all completely above any kind of corruption.
Competition is great, and I'd be all for Common Carrier rules, but it's not the be-all end all solution. There are many places in the country, most of them rural, which can realistically only support one ISP. Should those people be solely subjected to the whims of their provider?
Go ahead an enact all the pro-competition statues you want. More choices for as many people as we can stand. But make sure that there's a minimum level in place, to benefit the many people who live in rural areas.
Actually, the fact that they are capping the 4G data is evidence in favor of the argument. If they were planning to keep upgrading the network, instead of forgetting about it once the 4G was in place, they wouldn't be capping the data.
Wow, your last paragraph was nothing but pure bull shit. And with absolutely nothing to back it up, too.
Considering the Democrats were the ones to vote FOR Net Neutrality, I'd say at least on this issue, they are better.
From that graph, it looks like AT&T gave far more to Republicans than to Democrats. Furthermore, if that place gets it's data from the place I think it does, then that's not really the company giving money. Anytime a regular person like you or me donates money, we are supposed to list our employer. So when they add things up like this, it's not necessarily that the company itself, under the direction of the CEO gave that money, it's that employees of that company gave money. It's where you get the misleading stat that BP was one of Obama's biggest donors. They weren't, but lots of BP employees decided to give money.
Can someone explain to me why Republicans keep spewing this illogic about Net Neutrality?
Because it makes more money for business.
Why all the hate and rhetoric?
Because Obama is for Net Neutrality(at least he says he is).
Sucks to be you, that you can't see what's clear in front of your face.
Yes, there is a lot of undeveloped land. Why don't you go take a look at it some time. Tell me how much of it would actually be usable as farmland. And then tell me why the developers would want that land over some nice farmland that just came on the market.
Seriously, you have a head on your shoulders. Use it sometime.
Explain how rock bottom prices for food would provide enough incentive for people to actually go through the risk and the huge capital requirements of farming?
Without those subsidies, the only ones who could actually afford to farm would be the giant corporate farms. I don't really want them to be the only ones that I can get food from.
Blah blah, you're just trying to find a way to blame government for something that is purely the fault of people themselves.
You anti-government nuts are crazy.
WTF should we be doing this? It isn't like we have food shortages in the US.
The people who grow the food need to eat, too. Unless you want the only ones who can afford to grow crops to be giant, corporate farms, then farm subsidies should be a good thing. At least better than the alternative.
Again, you are the one that has made the claim that any kind of "undue experimentation" has taken place, and you are the one that has made claim as to how long that period has to be. It is up to you to back up your claims, not me.
I never backpedaled. We have always been talking about a solution. Never once have we not been. Of course, it's easier to call me a troll than to admit your own failure to comprehend what someone is writing.
No, it doesn't. Stop pretending it does. You have no evidence of any kind of "undue experimentation" taking place. Stop pretending you do.
Well, I suppose you could move to North Korea, then. Enjoy!
Ahh, trolling. Classy. I suppose that means that anything that has a law against it is instantly bad, right?
So you think they came up with the solution in an afternoon over tea?
Maybe. However, I'm not the one trying to assert how they came up with the solution. You are. Thus, you are the one that is assuming.
[Citation needed].
Again, you're the one making the assumption. The onus is on YOU to back it up.
He open-sourced Doom in 2000?
Nobody claimed he did, dumbass. However, if you had actually read the article, and the links provided with it, you'd have seen that Carmack came up with it in 2000, during development of Doom 3. He also presented it at a conference shortly thereafter.
Only if he can't afford a license. If he can, then he doesn't have to waste any time.
So now they have to waste capital and resources. Same fucking problem.
You still haven't proven it's an "obvious" solution
You haven't proven that it's not. So just about everything you've said on that subject is moot.
And yes, the patent does reduce the wasted effort of the second guy re-inventing the first solution - a term which, I notice, you quietly tiptoed away from.
I haven't "tiptoed" away from anything. You, however, have decided that coming up with another, possibly non-ideal solution to the same problem apparently doesn't waste time and effort. Wasn't saving time one of your big justifications for this
Shiat, using a solution is easy. I can use Microsoft Word without ever having to write a line of code. But we're not talking about using a solution... we're talking about inventing the solution, a process which may take months and months of [drumroll] wasted effort.
Wow, talk about a waste of time. This statement has absolutely nothing to do with what is being talked about. Of course we're talking about getting a solution, dumbfuck. Except now, we've taken time and effort to find the ideal and obvious solution, but while doing that, it's revealed that it's patented. So now we've wasted all that time and effort, and now we have to waste even more time and effort trying to invent another, possibly non-ideal solution to the same problem.
Not only have you failed to demonstrate that this invention is non-obvious, but you've also failed to address the wasted effort by people who were coming up with the obvious solution to the problem, but now can't use it due to patents, and have to throw away that effort, and expend more on coming up with another solution.
. after months and months of experimentation, thus proving that it's not obvious.
That doesn't prove a thing regarding it's obviousness. Stop pretending it does.
No, because they were given a license. However, no one else would be able to use the code, as that would be an infringement.