For about 6 months, I sat in a cubicle that faced a sales guy. As part of his job, he was on the phone about 6 hours a day, talking right at me.

My solution in the end was to go to a hardware store and buy some construction grade ear protection - the over the head, earmuff style that you see on people operating jackhammers. Cost me about 20 bucks, and almost completely drowned out everything around me. (They are about as good in an office setting as the bose noise cancelling headphones, and about 90% cheaper)

It also sends a clear message to those around you. When I had headphones on, people thought I was listening to music for enjoyment. When you put these things on, it sends a very clear STFU, I'm trying to think, message. (OK, it did feel a little juvenile, but after a few days, it was fine. People understood that I didn't hate them, I just needed some quiet, and this was the easiest way to accomplish it without sssh-ing everyone around me.)

As an alternative, I've actually found that even just having headphones on, but no music playing (assuming large, over the ear kind) is pretty effective as well. It drowns out some of the noise, and has the added benefit that people assume you can't hear them, so they don't talk to you. I actually spend about half of my day with earphones on that aren't playing a sound. When I'm doing something easy, I turn on the tunes, when I have to think, I turn them off but leave the headphones on.

If you spent the next week with the headphones on, but the cord clearly lying on your desk, unplugged, I think that might help your boss understand that the phones are not what he thinks they are for.

I'd speak to your Doctor. I imagine you can get a prescription that will be covered by your insurance. Way easier than 'a friend of a friend' trying to find illegal ways of getting it under your name.

I disagree*.
You should pay the tax for the state in which you bought the item in.
If you bought the item in Nevada at a retail store; pay taxes in Nevada.
If you bought the item in California at a retail store; pay taxes in California.
If you bought the item in Nevada, from a store in California, pay the Nevada taxes.

For a company that has no physical borders, this system is the one that is the easiest to enforce, and it makes at least as much sense as any other system. Especially because the tax is based on the price of the item, and the price at most large retailers is set by the purchasers location (the price of an XBox, or even a book, in the US, Europe or Canada is different, even after taking into account exchange rates).

If you did it another way you'd run into interesting problems like:
My purchasing department in New York, bought me a Mac Laptop at the online store which is based out of California. The Laptop was shipped to my address in Alberta, Canada, from the warehouse in Taiwan.

Which tax do I pay? Heck, which price do I pay?
Ideally, I'd like to pay the Taiwan price (lowest) and the Alberta sales tax (0%). However, it makes reasonable sense that I should pay the New York Price and Tax.

*For the record, this is the System that exists in Canada (where I'm from), and has existed for as long as we've had nation wide mail order companies (>100 years). So, I'm a little biased in this direction.

I made that move a long time ago, but with a slight difference. The only news site that I regularly check is slashdot. My thinking is that if something is critically important, the sort of thing that I should really pay attention to, it will be posted here.

In the last 8 years, I've only missed one news article worth mentioning, and it wasn't so much important as it was culturally significant to everyone around me...

France is great for that. I moved here last year from Canada.
I'm continually shocked by the difference in how people perceive the government vs the people, or the worker vs the employer. The amount of 'rights' afforded to the average person is startling when compared to what I had back home.

Ender's game is a must -- but I would add as supplemental reading Ender's Shadow. It's a super interesting example of parrallelism in story telling, and provides another view into things.

Of the available works of CS Lewis, I would of course recommend his Fantasy stuff, in particular the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. What I've only discovered very recently, though, is his Sci Fi works. While still as religiously driven as the Fantasy works, I think that it was a different take on it, and provided some good discussion points. Also, it's something that he's not associated with, so might be interesting to see the different angle.

Dune is another amazing book, and I think it's uncommon in the Sci Fi genre as a 'world building' book. The sort of stuff that I more regularly associate with Dragonlance, Tolkien or Anne McCaffrey. While I really enjoyed the book (I read this in Grade 9 Literature) I think that it might be too long for the average class.

I would definitely recommend a Harry Potter novel. It's most certainly fantasy, and has enough worth commenting on; although I might offer it as a suggestion for those who are intimidated by the larger books. As an alternative, the Tales of Beedle the Bard is something that is short, and has easy morals.

Other than that, I think you need a heinlen, and an aasimov, and possibly a sagan (go short stories for all three if you can).

It's required that you include tolkien, but I'd make it either the Hobbit, or just a smattering of selected readings. I think it can be assumed that people will be familiar with the world, if not from the books than from the movies.

I'd also consider something by Margaret Atwood, to demonstrate that Science Fiction can be Science Fiction even if the author refuses to admit it.
The Chrysalids is a commonly selected novel for lower grades, but be prepared for people to get really upset on a religious level. Also, the ending is brutal.

Finally, the first book in the hitchikers guide is a great example of comedic sci-fi.

As for the original post, I really don't think that Bradbury fits here. Sure, it will win you points with anyone who isn't a fan of the class, as it's considered classic lit. But, I don't think it's so remarkable that it would beat out the other stuff you mentioned. Orwell would be a good substitute though.

Salary: No.
Royalties: Yes.

I also think that royalties should be paid to people even after they cease being an employee, unlike a salary.

The creator's family is actually a pretty decent reason. (And, I suspect, the reason that the law was put in place.)

Consider two people, one who creates tangible goods, such as gas stations, and one who creates intellectual property, such as novels. If both of them died today, what would they leave behind in their estate? Of course, both would leave behind any financial earnings from their business as well as things that they had purchased. But what about each person's 'legacy.'

Obviously the gas station guy leaves behind a business that can run itself, as well as real estate, and some intangible value in the name he made for the company.

The author, on the other hand, just leaves behind words. By allowing copyright to extend until after the authors death, we are saying that the work that he created has value, even without the person who create the work, and we are allowing him to pass on these things of value to his family (who he may have been supporting up until now).

I do agree, though, that the term of the extension is too long. If I died today, my wife is likely to live for another 50 years or so. That said, I would hope that she would move on with her life and find alternate sources of income after not too long. Even with the gas station guy, above, unless his family steps up and deals with the business his legacy will significantly degrade after only a few years.

The extension should be more like 10 or 15 years. That would give enough time for the family to find alternate ways of sustaining themselves.

I think it would fall in the same category as a EULA. Very, very few people will actually read a EULA before clicking I Agree, but it's still considered enforceable in court.

In our case, it wasn't actually that hidden either. It was in the general guidelines section where you could find other things on sexual harassment, drug use, plagiarism, etc. And, if I recall correctly, it was phrased in pretty plain English (something like: 'All work submitted for course credit becomes property of the University.')

Because it was the calendar, the University was assured that everyone had read at least part of it (you had to in order to select any courses).

I just took a look at the online version of the new calendar (haven't looked in 7 years) and the policy that I remember seems to have been replaced with something more thorough, but it may not be in as obvious a place as before. I think that it's still pretty clear though.

--- snip ---

The creator owns the IP, unless:

3.1 The regulations of the sponsor of grant or contract research require different IP ownership provisions.

3.2 The University and University member have entered into a written agreement to share ownership of the IP.

3.3 The IP comprises course materials that are being commercialized; in which case, the University and the creator will have 50:50 ownership.

3.4 The IP is the result of a written agreement with a University member or a contract for services; in which case, the University shall retain ownership rights and control of the IP. This clause shall not apply to any undergraduate or graduate student where the work is part of their progress toward meeting their degree requirements.

Agreed -- my University did the exact same thing.
As for having to agree to the terms of handing over your copyright -- it was in the terms that you agreed to when you applied and registered.

You never signed a 'I waive my copyright' agreement, but you did sign an 'I agree to the terms, conditions and code of conduct as laid out in the calendar' agreement -- those terms included the copyright transfer deal.

The copyright transfer was not 100% though, you were still guaranteed attribution, but the University was allowed to republish as they wished.

They do -- but not for video. At least, not as far as I know.
(I'm pretty sure I said DVD in the OP)

Sell the games in a way that they cannot be resold.

iTunes did this, and they were good and sneaky about it too. It took me about 100$ of tv shows before it occurred to me that when I was buying the physical DVDs, I was paying 15% more up front, but then selling them on craigslist for 50% of face value, therefore saving money in the end.

I can't resell my iTunes purchases. Heck, I can't even lend them to a friend (without giving them my account or iPod). These both make the medium pretty restrictive -- however, it's convenient and cheap and really convenient. So, I keep buying.

If more vendors move to this model it would help them keep more of their revenue. However, I would hope that they would pass on some savings to consumers. It would only make sense to get them started. $60 in the store, or 45$ on our website.

This seems to be the way some people are moving - with the app store, or steam, as distribution channels.

Agreed.

All I'm saying is that if the level of validation for medical software/hardware is along the level of that required by Nasa, then we should expect rates of innovation and total cost to be commensurate with the IT Systems used in space shuttles rather than IT Systems implemented in other fields.

This stuff moves slowly because we make it move slowly. Is that bad? Probably not; but it shouldn't come as a surprise.