I wish we could up-vote your and tepples posts as the "Best Answer" to this thread. You two win.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
TurboTax's use-per-download limit is just as bad as these artist models. Alternatives like H&R Block @ Home's downloadable software have unlimited paper filings, but provide reasonable limits on services like electronic filings (five per activation code). And of course one download is only good for one tax year; you have to buy again for the next year, but that's not just to rip you off but to account for the ever-changing tax code.
It's simple how such little changes like that convert the license from "total bullshit, I hate them!" to "well, that seems reasonable". Also, one of them requires overbearing copyright law to enforce, while the other doesn't.
Then artists should look to make money on the tour that follows their new album, and be done with it. Instead of paying a 100-man crew and bringing in 10 trucks of custom sound and lighting equipment, then splitting the take 6 ways with the other band members, how about writing music that can be played on a rested grass lawn with minimal overhead and a four-piece band? And if that still doesn't work, how about just doing this on the weekends while you have another job during the week?
Nobody has a right to earn a living doing something. A subset of craftsmen we call "artists" have forgotten this.
How about a model where the artists only continue to get paid if they continue to work. You know, like the rest of us? Let's call that model the "Touring and Selling T-Shirts and Actually Writing New Material" model. Couple that with a crazy strategy called "Setting Up an IRA and Actually Saving for Retirement Like Everyone Else" and they might be viable.
Of course, that assumes enough people want to see them play and buy their T-shirts that they can afford to save for requirement. If they can't, I suggest that they instead try the "Get a Real Damn Job Because No One Owes You The Right To Chase Your Dream If You Aren't Good Enough to Make A Living At It" model.
And, since the employees are not employed in Massachusetts, they are not violating the agreement in Massachusetts. I think A123 is going to need to sue them in California where the contracts are being violated (and are void due to superseding state law). The employees just need to be sure not to visit MA for business until the non-compete term wears out.
Apple isn't even a party to these A123 agreements. Those are between A123 and the employees, so unless A123 is arguing some sort of wacky six-way conspiracy I think Apple will get this dismissed rather quickly.
Then A123 can decide if they want to sue the individuals, whereupon Apple will provide the five with complementary legal counsel to point out that non-compete agreements aren't valid in California.
You're correct that this doesn't sound like a cure. On the other hand, it might be both a very effective vaccine for the uninfected, and a reliable treatment for those infected. (This depends mostly on HIV's ability to mutate these receptors into something that can reject the drug but still connect to the target cells.) Even if a vaccine isn't a cure, it can lead to eradication of the disease. The smallpox vaccine wasn't a cure either, for example, but with sufficient coverage it was quite effective.
More recent HIV treatments target portions of the virus that mutate slowly, and are moreover unlikely to be able to mutate more quickly. These have significantly higher chances of being a "cure" compared to the older cocktails to which you refer. Unfortunately it did take 20 years of AIDs research to figure this out and have the knowledge and technology to develop these techniques, but I think a very reliable vaccine will be readily available by the end of the decade, and a cure 5-10 years after that.
Here's what I don't get; you obviously believe in the vaccine, so your kid got the shot, as did mine, and can't get the disease. We got nothing to worry about, why do we care what other people do?
The vaccine isn't 100% effective, with rates depending on which vaccine we're talking about. Your kid might have gotten the vaccine but might still get infected. Your other child is too young to get the vaccine and is thus susceptible regardless.
Also, humans with empathy worry about the well being of children besides their own.
False on two points.
1. Intel wants to hire the "best" candidate for a position, not necessarily the most "perfectly qualified". The definitions of both terms are subjective, so let me explain the difference with an example. I have interview a candidate for a senior position, whose resume was a mile long with impressive work. He had the necessary experience, and he might have the insight necessary to find novel solutions to our problems. But, in 30 minutes with him, I could tell he was an asshole. His attitude would shut down brainstorming sessions, drive wedges between other members of my team, and possibly drive some of them away. He was perhaps the "most qualified" candidate but he was certainly not the "best". The person I hired instead had less experience but a very positive work attitude, and has learned what he needed to become a good designer. If you don't agree with me on this point then let's just agree to disagree, because we need to spend more time talking about point...
2. Intel believes that the "best" candidate for a position might not be applying for the position. Is that hard to imagine? When your company has a job opening, they don't necessarily look at all of the resumes, pick the one that sucks the least, and hire them. Maybe they didn't cast a wide enough net to gather interest? Maybe they need to change their recruiting practices entirely? Sometimes you pick "none of the above" and try again. Intel believes that the best candidate for some of their positions isn't applying for the job, because she was told in fourth grade by her science teacher that she wasn't cut out for computer work, because he was sexist. They know they'll have a job opening in 2027 for a talented young computer scientist, and they are concerned that they won't get the "best" candidate because that candidate decided on a different career.
My 2003 Sony plasma (still doing fine, thanks) is the last Sony product I've bought. If they're losing money, it's in part due to engineering mistakes (investing in plasma over LED) but also in part due to the film and music arm (makes my hate the company).
They need to get the hardware arm lean and mean and profitable and spin it if off. Actually I'd keep the Sony name on the hardware and gaming arm and spin off film and music and insurance. If I owned the company. Which I don't, not even slightly, because they suck and I don't want their stock in my portfolio.
Why would it be? A math major has already learned all the math taught in grade school. And a math educator, who will teach grade school, might need a refresher on how math is being taught today, but doesn't necessarily need to know math concepts more complicated than a few years past where they plan to teach. I'm sure if they truly love math they could take additional math courses as electives, but to get a job as a teacher their education should focus on how to teach.
I suspect that, sometime in the next 200 years, someone (not necessarily a government) will start releasing aerosols into the upper atmosphere to reflect away more sunlight, preventing it from reaching the surface at all. Only military action could stop something like this, as any given country or rich enough individual or group could do it.
The real question is, will there be a way to remove these aerosols once the resulting cooling (together with increased sequestration of carbon) leads to an increase in surface ice? Or will they just dim the sun and leave a future generation to fix that?
No Highlander jokes, please.
I think a large percentage of baby boomers are starting to realize that they can never retire...
>> So you would rather put a burden on the poor who can't afford to fix their cars or buy newer ones??
Just because you're poor doesn't mean you have the right to pollute more than anyone else. The government could subsidize fixing the car, or the poor could instead try out subsidized public transportation, or the government could subsidize newer, more efficient cars. We can call it Cash for Clunkers.