Are there some situations where NDAs are appropriate? You betcha. [...] An NDA should be dependent upon the signer being compensated in some non-trivial way, as in a condition of being hired or part of terms of a sale. Requiring one prior to that is highly suspect, and signing one, I say

So, according to TFA, NDA'ing your employees is fine, because you're offering them some kind of compensation. But asking a guy you called up to have some coffee and toss around an idea to sign... not legit.

If you haven't seen that in action, btw (the "let's grab coffee and you give me your advice, but here also sign this NDA?"), it absolutely happens.

Perhaps I should lower my skills to suite you and the rest?

Oh, sweet irony.

YES YOU DO. It's called being a professional. There is absolutely no need nor excuse for bullying, or being disrespectful in a professional workplace.

That's a matter of perspective. Going into the 3rd meeting where you're discussing the same problem, yet again, and finding the people in charge coming to lazy conclusions, yet again, is systemic. At some point you either accept it as the cost of a corporate job, or you push back. But people don't like to be called out on their laziness -- least of all as a manager, in front of a team.

Just because Hulu's owners own the content doesn't mean licensing is free to Hulu. In fact, it would behoove them to charge Hulu top dollar for the content and let Hulu take a loss for the tax breaks.

They're different companies. Now that I think about it, if Comcast gave the rights away to Hulu wouldn't Hulu have to claim them as gains? They could be doing that to make the company look more profitable to a prospective buyer, although it'll be in the list of the top 5 things looked at in due diligence. There are a million different ways to play it.

Yes, they're really going to miss your $30/year... assuming you even buy that.

They know, knew, and understand that you cannot fix a deficit or reduce the national debt without raising taxes.

Of course you can. You do it by spending less.

And the Walton's and Koch bro's are not going to save grandma, they aren't going to help you pay for your education, and they wont give you money to survive so you don't become a criminal hooligan when unemployed or laid off.

Why should the government save grandma? Paying for education... well, first there's the racket of Universities always increasing their tuition by the amount the government allows students to borrow, but more importantly it's the only kind of loan you can't discharge in bankruptcy. Student lending is a veritable goldmine for the government, and if they didn't have laws protecting their goldmine you can bet your bottom dollar that private banks would take up the mantle. Higher education is so lucrative it's ridiculous.

Unemployment? Well, that's insurance more or less. You pay an unemployment tax, and then if you later become unemployed you can collect. If the government didn't have a monopoly on that, too, I'd probably pay a private insurer for the same thing.

I mean this tax probably will suck and be annoying but its this or we lose social security, education, healthcare, and we get to watch grandma die.because you couldn't afford her medicine or treatment.

Losing social security? Fine by me. Let the workers take the ridiculous amount of money they pour into that system every paycheck and let them invest it on their own. Shoot, even mandate that you must invest a certain percent of your income somewhere if you're worried about people not doing it. Education? Well, see above. If you're in the U.S., you pay out the nose for it. Healthcare.. not really sure how taxes are related to that.

Espically in my field, education is very important (not just higher learning, but simply learning new technologies), and if you don't seem willing to even learn anything past the basics, it makes you a much less qualified applicant.

"Espically"... heh. I bet you'd have thrown out a resume with that error!

The correlation you're making is that people who are interested in learning new technologies are people who went to and graduated from college. I think this causal relationship is tenuous at best.

Good ideas that are well thought-out, feasible, implementable, and can be executed in time aren't ideas anymore; they're plans. If you throw finances, marketing, and market research in there, they're business plans. Business plans (that have legs) are not a dime a dozen, but they take a couple orders of magnitude more work than simple ideas.

Sometimes the business plan is dependent on the implementation anyway. What was Google's idea? Make the best damn search engine there is. Ok, cool idea. Anybody could have been Google, because that idea was so important and valuable, right? Wrong; like all good ideas, the valuable stuff was in the implementation. While maybe 20% of the population could say, "Here's a brilliant idea, let's improve search!", maybe 0.001% of the population have the chops to actually do anything about it.

What's "likely" isn't really important, and is what leads to confirmation bias on both sides. Perhaps your fictitious corpse was a politician in the middle of a scandal who committed suicide, but their party thought a murder would be more sympathetic.

The anti-religious have an uncanny ability to accept things on faith when they agree with their worldview.