As an aside, I'd rather work with someone who was a complete asshole, but often right, than a person who was always nice, but often incorrect.
I wouldn't. When the asshole is incorrect, they'll still be an asshole. They'll probably be an even bigger asshole because you dared challenge their wisdom.
This means that there are, quite literally, tens of thousands of people who are *perfectly capable* of being excellent software engineers - just as good as you - but who are not working in that field because they've been told, in effect "sorry, Black dudes, and girls of all colors can't do this stuff. Maybe you'd like dealing drugs or baking cakes instead?"
But that's fiction. Black kids aren't being told that at all. Instead, many deliberately avoid academic and STEM fields because their own peers disapprove of it.
Just to be pedantic, that would mean that they are being told that they can't (or at least shouldn't) do it. It doesn't necessarily have to be an adult that teaches children what jobs their gender, ethnicity, etc. can and cannot do. "Peer pressure" has been an issue at least since I was in grade school.
Suppose I said "To be fair to [a murderer], [other murderer1], [other murderer2], [other murderer3] and [other murderer4] didn't [fail to murder], either."
Suddenly it becomes (or should become) obvious that there is nothing relevant whatsoever about the other entity's actions that involves being "fair" to the entity being examined.
Google is being evil here. No slack for this should be contemplated whatsoever. It is irrelevant to our consideration of Google if/that others are being evil as well. The metric shouldn't in any way be "everyone does it", it should be "this company is doing bad things, and they should stop."
You rarely hear anyone say that Jack the Ripper was an evil person, but Charles Manson was really a nice guy that was just misunderstood.
In this case, though, you may get a large number of fanboys of other technology companies spouting about how this makes Google the most evil company in the history of the world.
1960s: "Cheap fusion power is only 40 years away." 1980s: "In 40 years we'll have cheap fusion power." 2015: "We're getting closer, at the rate we're making progress we'll have fusion power within 40 years"
And each time it was said, there was an assumption that funding would stay at the same level. Fusion power isn't X years away, it's Y dollars away. If we keep reducing the amount of money we spend on research and development, X will get larger, because Y isn't changing.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.
The professors I had in college must have been truly outstanding at doing, because they sure didn't bother teaching.
If they don't patent this, someone else will. Because we now have a "first to file" system, where prior art doesn't matter if the prior artist never patented it.
You need to stop getting your legal advice from trolls on Slashdot (and people need to stop modding this up), because this is completely wrong.
Accellerating and breaking for no reason
They're breaking for no reason?
Clearly you've never been to Boston.
I don't recall Pelosi or Obama advocating anything more than not raising taxes as much as some wanted. What laws are you referring to?
Politicians did things contrary to what they said they would do? Surely, you must be joking.
Seriously... I was approached a couple of days ago and asked if I believe laws should be based on the Bible? When I said no the person quickly accused me of wanting a "muslim theocracy (his words)".
Seriously, WTF.
Only three out of the ten commandments are codified into US law: thou shalt not kill (murder), thou shalt not steal(theft), thou shalt not bear false witness (perjury). Adultery laws might still be on the books in some states, but I doubt they'd hold up in court. Otherwise you are perfectly free to dishonor your parents, worship graven images, work on Sunday, take the Lord's name in vain, and covet your neighbor's wife. As for abortion: an embryo or a fetus is not a person and it is not viable to live on its own. Even the Bible makes this clear since the punishment for striking a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarriage is not the same punishment as murder.
First, thank you for bringing up the penalty for striking a pregnant woman. I'm glad I'm not the only one who remembers those verses whenever anyone claims that God says abortion is murder.
However, "Thou shall not kill" is definitely wrong. The Hebrew word is "murder", not "kill". There isn't any ambiguity on that one.
Also, you could arguably give half credit for the Sabbath commandment. Up until recently, a lot of states restricted businesses being open on Sundays. Even now, there are quite a few laws about what you can do on Sundays (restrictions on the sale of alcohol is the first one that comes to mind).
So their plan is to make cheap laborers by educating children in CS and flooding the labor market with them and H1-B's? Really, you guys are incredible. You think Gates is doing this so labor is cheap for...Microsoft in the future? So he can make more money for...Microsoft?
I know it's hard to believe, but every once in a while you get someone who's capable of thinking past the end of the quarter.
taken without permission. The last 3 words in the previous sentence define theft.
No, they don't. Theft is taking scarce good without permission. You can keep using their newspeak if you want though.
Depends on where you live. Some states define "Theft of Services" as a crime.
1. Many musicians have families and work to create an inheritance for them. If there is no copyright past death there is no inheritance.
So, when I die, can I still have the company I work for continue to pay my family for the work I did when I was alive?
Copyright laws that extend beyond the death of the artist are an abomination.
No, but the money that you were already paid does go to your family. Your company will also pay your family for your unused vacation time (at least this is true when you leave or are fired, so I assume it's true if you die unexpectedly). The term is "deferred compensation", and that's what royalties are.
Copyright terms that automatically expire at the death of the artist are what would be completely unfair. In addition to the danger of a young artist dying unexpectedly, as another poster described above, it would provide reduced incentive for older artists to continue producing works. A fair copyright term would be a fixed length, completely regardless of what happens to the creator. Otherwise, the monetary value of the work is directly dependent on the age, health, and, to some extent, luck of the creator.
If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.
