|
|
...perhaps it sends the message that what you are able to do, and what you continue to do effectively is more important than what on-paper tests you've passed.
By that logic, the board member selected a candidate for CEO who ended up being successful at it; and therefore did her job effectively. Shouldn't that be more important that what on-paper test the other guy passed?
Really. I get to see it the way I see it, in a discussion about how everyone will not see things the same! Thanks, Man!
I see what you did there, you silly goose. Your sarcasm seems to be a bit misdirected, if you think about it. SleazyRidr's point was not that you get to see it the way you see it, or that other people in this discussion might not see things this same. His point was that the supreme court, based on previous rulings, sees the situation in a way that is diametrically opposed to yours. There's also the implicit understanding that when it comes down to it, the majority opinion of those 9 justices is what will matter. For the record, I think it SHOULD be the way you describe, and for all I know, so does SleazyRidr. But none of that matters in the system we currently have.
It's interesting how you're saying this is not good at a large-sum, high-scale level, but in general Slashdotters think that doing it on a smaller scale, with donations to musicians, is a good one. As an IP discussion: when does the 'non-guaranteed pay' model work and when is it toxic?
I would say the 'non-guaranteed pay' model becomes toxic when that model allows people to be paid below a decent living wage. People should be paid decently for their work, if that work benefits society (like these textbooks presumably do). They probably shouldn't be paid millions (lets not even mention sports and athlete wages), but they should get more than a few nickels out of the deal.
To your point though, it is the folks that demand their rights be viewed as absolute that usually bring about more regulation.
bullshit. It's the folks that want to limit, or regulate, other people's rights, despite the obviously absolute phrasing used in the constitution and the bill of rights, that brings about more regulation.
I B M U B M We all B M For I B M!!!! -- H.A.R.L.I.E.