Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Hmm (Score 1) 892

The thing is, if you go to a company where everyone works 60 hours a week and you want to work 40, you are fucking everyone else in your team.

no, you are refusing to be fucked along with everyone else.

if you're expected to routinely work 60+ hours then you should be paid for 60+ hours, not 40. note that that implies a 50+% pay increase over the standard 40-ish hour week.

in several jobs i've had over the last decade or so, i've negotiated a three or four day working week because the reduced money is adequate for my needs and I enjoy the extra time for my personal life and pursuits. As a result, I've noticed that one of the nicest things about working less than a full-time job is that when the employer asks you to work extra because some project or job really needs it, they always offer money or time-in-lieu to compensate. they typically don't bother doing that if you're working full-time, they just assume that they can demand more time from you without compensation or even reciprocity.

Comment: Re:Negotiating is necessary. (Score 3, Insightful) 892

Of course, if someone asks me what I would like as a starting salary, I'll give an answer. And they rarely ask me that anyway, usually they ask my current salary and then the offer is a bump up over that. But that's not negotiation.

i've found that most employers do ask you what you expect as salary, knowing that most people will under-value themselves.

i'm terrible at negotiations (coz i'm not an extroverted sales-arsehole) but even i know to reflect that question back by asking what's being offered.

about the only thing i am consistently good at in negotiations is gettring rid of any clauses that say that whatever i do (whether in my time or theirs, on my equipment or theirs) belongs to them. I have my own projects and i contribute to various open source projects and i bring my own personal toolbox of tricks and techniques (that i've developed in my own time over many years) in to benefit my workplace - there's no way in hell i'm going to let them own that for any price. i have any clauses like that replaced with clauses that say, in short, that what i do on their time on their equipment is theirs and anything else i do is mine. if they're not willing to agree to that, then they're not the kind of employer i want to work for.

Comment: Re:Lower taxes (Score 1) 312

by cas2000 (#49434973) Attached to: Google, Apple and Microsoft Squirm As Global Tax Schemes Scrutinized

Don't know where you got the "reducing wages" bit in a discussion about tax rates

because the same corporate shills make the same bullshit arguments for lowering wages as they do for lowering taxes. it's all about maximising profit by *whatever* means possible - legal or illegal, ethically or unethically, honestly or dishonestly. the methods don't matter. the lies told don't matter. only the result (increased profit) matters.

But the actual question that started this is whether a company would move to get away from higher taxes, and the clear answer to that is "if they can, of course they will". You can't move the local MickyD, but the company that makes the cups and stuff the MickyD uses can certainly move to a lower tax area. And it is hardly uncommon to hear about a company making a location decision based on tax considerations.

if they're not contributing to the economy by paying their share of taxes, then fuck 'em. if they want to make money in the local economy then they can fucking pay their taxes or fuck off (and hopefully die).

i'm fucking sick of governments giving in to such extortion from corporate parasites - they should just call the bluff and tell them to pay their tax or fuck off.

And it is hardly uncommon to hear about a company making a location decision based on tax considerations.

and the loopholes that allow that should be not just closed but criminalised so that the directors and executives that commit the crimes are not only risking their own personal assets but also gaol time.

Comment: Re:Lower taxes (Score 2) 312

by cas2000 (#49433545) Attached to: Google, Apple and Microsoft Squirm As Global Tax Schemes Scrutinized

Where's the "big lie", again?

the Big Lie is that cutting taxes and eliminating regulations and reducing wages will encourage businesses to employ more people.

this is complete and utter bullshit. All that those things do is increase profit for the business - which they do NOT pass on to consumers and do NOT use to hire more people.

the one and only thing that causes businesses to hire more people is if they have more customers buying so much more of their stuff that their existing employees can not keep up with demand.

and that requires people having money in their pockets to buy stuff with - e.g. numerous studies have shown that, contrary to corporate/libertarian propaganda, raising the minimum wage increases employment because more people are spending more money. ditto for welfare like pensions, unemployment benefit, sickness benefits etc. this money gets spent on daily living requirements and boosts the economy, creates jobs, and gets more people back into paid employment.

Comment: Re:In other words ... (Score 1) 312

by cas2000 (#49433463) Attached to: Google, Apple and Microsoft Squirm As Global Tax Schemes Scrutinized

no, step 1 is fixing the loopholes that allow them to get away with profit-shifting.

if they sell their product (iphones, advertising, whatever) in australia then they fucking well should pay tax on that income in australia, not singapore and not ireland and certainly not the fucking bahamas.

step 2 is punitive taxation levels for all profits proven to be shifted out of the country - 60% at least. try scamming the ATO with bullshit company structuring, get caught, pay double.

step 3 - start gaoling the fuckers for tax evasion, and make directors and senior execs personally liable for the tax thefts perpetrated by their companies.

Comment: Re:Slashdotted (Score 2) 225

by cas2000 (#49425199) Attached to: How Ubiquiti Networks Is Creatively Violating the GPL

wrong. read GPLv2 section 3:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

        a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
        source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
        1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

        b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
        years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
        cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
        machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
        distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
        customarily used for software interchange; or,

        c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
        to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
        allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
        received the program in object code or executable form with such
        an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

(bolding/emphasis added by me)

i.e. you must either provide the source WITH the binaries (e.g. by including a source CD with the router product), *OR* you must supply the source to *anyone* who asks for it.

Comment: Re:Do It, it worked in AZ (Score 1) 886

by cas2000 (#49367247) Attached to: Gen Con Threatens To Leave Indianapolis Over Religious Freedom Bill

if they're running a cotton-picking business and they refuse to serve you *because* you're white or gay or female or some other class, then YES they are violating your rights.

if you run a business open to the public then you don't have the right to discriminate against classes of people - you can ban specific individuals because of their behaviour (e.g. shoplifiting) but you can't ban all black people or all gay people.

if you try to get around that with a dumb loophole like saying you're a private club or something then you'll deserve it when your IRS takes a long hard look at you.

Comment: Re:Then ID would be required (Score 1) 1089

by cas2000 (#49299807) Attached to: Obama: Maybe It's Time For Mandatory Voting In US

that sounds like election rigging or ballot box stuffing, not voter fraud.

voter fraud is where someone votes multiple times or pretends to be someone they're not in order to vote. it's so rare and so small that it's insignificant.

election rigging is conducted by corrupt election officials or politicians or their agents or corporate vermin. it can be a huge problem, especially with electronic voting machines owned by a company with strong ties to one party (such as diebold and your republican party). your country has had numerous instances of this with huge effects on election outcomes for the last several elections.

Comment: Re:Then ID would be required (Score 1) 1089

by cas2000 (#49298793) Attached to: Obama: Maybe It's Time For Mandatory Voting In US

The loony extreme fringes tend to balance each other out without the mandatory voting because they are motivated to vote.

no, the result is that you get one or the other of the loony fringes winning. as evidenced by YOUR country.

What the compulsory voting does is make the people that are too lazy/unmotivated/disenfranchised/etc to educate themselves about the issues and parties go out and vote for whoever looks the best or has the best sounding name. It's those people I really don't want voting.

so, you admit that the reason you're against compulsory voting is because it, by default, disenfranchises those you consider to be unworthy of voting? that's fucked up.

these people have a right to vote. more to the point, they have a civic duty to vote (or at least, to bother to get their name crossed off - in which case, most of them will bother to actually think about it and make a choice)....and, just as importantly, if they did have to vote then some candidates or parties will start trying to be appealing to them by having policies that benefit them.

your system is corrupt and taken over by corporate interests partly BECAUSE you don't have compulsory voting - they can rely on most people thinking that there's no point in voting because the system is rigged. a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Comment: Re:Then ID would be required (Score 1) 1089

by cas2000 (#49298763) Attached to: Obama: Maybe It's Time For Mandatory Voting In US

well, they wouldn't. But, just like in your country, the amount of voter fraud that actually happens (as opposed to the amount of voter fraud claimed to happen by conservative parties who want to disenfranchise minorities) is as close to zero as makes no difference. it's certainly statistically insignificant and really does make no difference to the election outcome.

still, i expect that if someone turned up to vote and looked nervous or otherwise suspicious then the polling officials might ask for some form of ID, and require a provisonal ballot just in case.

Comment: Re:37% Participation? (Score 1) 1089

by cas2000 (#49296435) Attached to: Obama: Maybe It's Time For Mandatory Voting In US

umm, yeah. elections in countries with compulsory voting routinely gets a voter turnout of 99+%

that's a much higher "sample rate" than 37%.

It also means that to win, a candidate needs to get the votes of >50% of the actual population. ALL of the citizens, not just 50% of the 37% who bother to turn up.

Comment: Re:Then ID would be required (Score 5, Informative) 1089

by cas2000 (#49296219) Attached to: Obama: Maybe It's Time For Mandatory Voting In US

ID is not necessarily required.

e.g. in Australia, you turn up to the polling station (usually a local school or whatever), go to the desk and tell them your name. they look it up in their lists of voters, and cross your name off. Then they initial and hand you your ballot papers which you take to a private voting booth and fill out. Then you fold them and drop them into the ballot boxes (one for the house of reps, one for the senate). done.

In the last few elections, the Australian Electoral Commission (an independant govt body who have the responsibility for running elections) have been mailing out helpful voter cards with your name and IIRC your address on it which you can show at the desk. These cards are completely optional, you can still vote if you forget to bring it or have lost it or never got it, and you still don't have to show any ID.

And, yes, voting is compulsory in australia. In practice, this means you just have to turn up to a polling station and get your name crossed off the list. You can then vote informally if you choose, nobody will know. If you don't turn up, you'll get a letter in the mail a few weeks later asking if you have a good excuse (like, "I was too sick to leave the house"). If not, you'll get fined.

btw, compulsory voting is a good thing. it tends to limit the excesses of the loony extreme fringes of all sides, by encouraging politicians and major parties to pander to the middle ground.

and preferential voting (i.e. ordering your preferences as 1, 2, 3, etc) is also a good thing. it allows voters to vote for third parties and independant candidates without wasting their vote - if their first choice fails to win, their 2nd choice gets their vote...and then their third, fourth, etc choices. It also allows voters to send a message or lodge a protest, e.g. vote for the socialist party 1st and Labour 2nd - Labour will still (almost certainly) end up with that person's vote but they're also telling the Labour party that their policies are too right-wing and too cozy with business.....and, hey, if the impossible happens and the pimple-faced university student from Socialist Alliance wins a seat, that'll shake things up a bit in parliament!

Comment: no state should have the right to murder people (Score 1) 1081

by cas2000 (#49272955) Attached to: How To Execute People In the 21st Century

it's just too dangerous a power for them to have.

but since the death penalty does exist in some places, IMO the only reasonable way to do it is:

1. the victim or a close member of the victim's family MUST be the ones to do the killing. no exceptions, except for one and only one circumstance (if the victim has no living family, then the prosecutor MUST be the state's killer) - if they can't stomach doing it, then it shouldn't be done.

The method should be as gruesome yet painless as possible - knockout drugs followed by manual beheading, perhaps...but there should be no euphemistic way of disguising the fact that a state-sanctioned *murder* is being committed.

2. if it is later discovered that they executed an innocent person, then they and everyone else directly involved in the execution (prosecutor, prison guards, etc) MUST be charged with murder and also subject to the death penalty.

3. prosecutors MUST be charged with attempted murder if (while the death row prisoner is still living) it is found that they ignored or suppressed evidence that proves innocence or provides enough reasonable doubt for a jury to acquit.

Fear is the greatest salesman. -- Robert Klein