I disagree*.
You should pay the tax for the state in which you bought the item in.
If you bought the item in Nevada at a retail store; pay taxes in Nevada.
If you bought the item in California at a retail store; pay taxes in California.
If you bought the item in Nevada, from a store in California, pay the Nevada taxes.

For a company that has no physical borders, this system is the one that is the easiest to enforce, and it makes at least as much sense as any other system. Especially because the tax is based on the price of the item, and the price at most large retailers is set by the purchasers location (the price of an XBox, or even a book, in the US, Europe or Canada is different, even after taking into account exchange rates).

If you did it another way you'd run into interesting problems like:
My purchasing department in New York, bought me a Mac Laptop at the online store which is based out of California. The Laptop was shipped to my address in Alberta, Canada, from the warehouse in Taiwan.

Which tax do I pay? Heck, which price do I pay?
Ideally, I'd like to pay the Taiwan price (lowest) and the Alberta sales tax (0%). However, it makes reasonable sense that I should pay the New York Price and Tax.

*For the record, this is the System that exists in Canada (where I'm from), and has existed for as long as we've had nation wide mail order companies (>100 years). So, I'm a little biased in this direction.

I made that move a long time ago, but with a slight difference. The only news site that I regularly check is slashdot. My thinking is that if something is critically important, the sort of thing that I should really pay attention to, it will be posted here.

In the last 8 years, I've only missed one news article worth mentioning, and it wasn't so much important as it was culturally significant to everyone around me...

France is great for that. I moved here last year from Canada.
I'm continually shocked by the difference in how people perceive the government vs the people, or the worker vs the employer. The amount of 'rights' afforded to the average person is startling when compared to what I had back home.

Ender's game is a must -- but I would add as supplemental reading Ender's Shadow. It's a super interesting example of parrallelism in story telling, and provides another view into things.

Of the available works of CS Lewis, I would of course recommend his Fantasy stuff, in particular the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. What I've only discovered very recently, though, is his Sci Fi works. While still as religiously driven as the Fantasy works, I think that it was a different take on it, and provided some good discussion points. Also, it's something that he's not associated with, so might be interesting to see the different angle.

Dune is another amazing book, and I think it's uncommon in the Sci Fi genre as a 'world building' book. The sort of stuff that I more regularly associate with Dragonlance, Tolkien or Anne McCaffrey. While I really enjoyed the book (I read this in Grade 9 Literature) I think that it might be too long for the average class.

I would definitely recommend a Harry Potter novel. It's most certainly fantasy, and has enough worth commenting on; although I might offer it as a suggestion for those who are intimidated by the larger books. As an alternative, the Tales of Beedle the Bard is something that is short, and has easy morals.

Other than that, I think you need a heinlen, and an aasimov, and possibly a sagan (go short stories for all three if you can).

It's required that you include tolkien, but I'd make it either the Hobbit, or just a smattering of selected readings. I think it can be assumed that people will be familiar with the world, if not from the books than from the movies.

I'd also consider something by Margaret Atwood, to demonstrate that Science Fiction can be Science Fiction even if the author refuses to admit it.
The Chrysalids is a commonly selected novel for lower grades, but be prepared for people to get really upset on a religious level. Also, the ending is brutal.

Finally, the first book in the hitchikers guide is a great example of comedic sci-fi.

As for the original post, I really don't think that Bradbury fits here. Sure, it will win you points with anyone who isn't a fan of the class, as it's considered classic lit. But, I don't think it's so remarkable that it would beat out the other stuff you mentioned. Orwell would be a good substitute though.

Salary: No.
Royalties: Yes.

I also think that royalties should be paid to people even after they cease being an employee, unlike a salary.

The creator's family is actually a pretty decent reason. (And, I suspect, the reason that the law was put in place.)

Consider two people, one who creates tangible goods, such as gas stations, and one who creates intellectual property, such as novels. If both of them died today, what would they leave behind in their estate? Of course, both would leave behind any financial earnings from their business as well as things that they had purchased. But what about each person's 'legacy.'

Obviously the gas station guy leaves behind a business that can run itself, as well as real estate, and some intangible value in the name he made for the company.

The author, on the other hand, just leaves behind words. By allowing copyright to extend until after the authors death, we are saying that the work that he created has value, even without the person who create the work, and we are allowing him to pass on these things of value to his family (who he may have been supporting up until now).

I do agree, though, that the term of the extension is too long. If I died today, my wife is likely to live for another 50 years or so. That said, I would hope that she would move on with her life and find alternate sources of income after not too long. Even with the gas station guy, above, unless his family steps up and deals with the business his legacy will significantly degrade after only a few years.

The extension should be more like 10 or 15 years. That would give enough time for the family to find alternate ways of sustaining themselves.

I think it would fall in the same category as a EULA. Very, very few people will actually read a EULA before clicking I Agree, but it's still considered enforceable in court.

In our case, it wasn't actually that hidden either. It was in the general guidelines section where you could find other things on sexual harassment, drug use, plagiarism, etc. And, if I recall correctly, it was phrased in pretty plain English (something like: 'All work submitted for course credit becomes property of the University.')

Because it was the calendar, the University was assured that everyone had read at least part of it (you had to in order to select any courses).

I just took a look at the online version of the new calendar (haven't looked in 7 years) and the policy that I remember seems to have been replaced with something more thorough, but it may not be in as obvious a place as before. I think that it's still pretty clear though.

--- snip ---

The creator owns the IP, unless:

3.1 The regulations of the sponsor of grant or contract research require different IP ownership provisions.

3.2 The University and University member have entered into a written agreement to share ownership of the IP.

3.3 The IP comprises course materials that are being commercialized; in which case, the University and the creator will have 50:50 ownership.

3.4 The IP is the result of a written agreement with a University member or a contract for services; in which case, the University shall retain ownership rights and control of the IP. This clause shall not apply to any undergraduate or graduate student where the work is part of their progress toward meeting their degree requirements.

Agreed -- my University did the exact same thing.
As for having to agree to the terms of handing over your copyright -- it was in the terms that you agreed to when you applied and registered.

You never signed a 'I waive my copyright' agreement, but you did sign an 'I agree to the terms, conditions and code of conduct as laid out in the calendar' agreement -- those terms included the copyright transfer deal.

The copyright transfer was not 100% though, you were still guaranteed attribution, but the University was allowed to republish as they wished.

They do -- but not for video. At least, not as far as I know.
(I'm pretty sure I said DVD in the OP)

Sell the games in a way that they cannot be resold.

iTunes did this, and they were good and sneaky about it too. It took me about 100$ of tv shows before it occurred to me that when I was buying the physical DVDs, I was paying 15% more up front, but then selling them on craigslist for 50% of face value, therefore saving money in the end.

I can't resell my iTunes purchases. Heck, I can't even lend them to a friend (without giving them my account or iPod). These both make the medium pretty restrictive -- however, it's convenient and cheap and really convenient. So, I keep buying.

If more vendors move to this model it would help them keep more of their revenue. However, I would hope that they would pass on some savings to consumers. It would only make sense to get them started. $60 in the store, or 45$ on our website.

This seems to be the way some people are moving - with the app store, or steam, as distribution channels.

Agreed.

All I'm saying is that if the level of validation for medical software/hardware is along the level of that required by Nasa, then we should expect rates of innovation and total cost to be commensurate with the IT Systems used in space shuttles rather than IT Systems implemented in other fields.

This stuff moves slowly because we make it move slowly. Is that bad? Probably not; but it shouldn't come as a surprise.

There's another good reason.

In the IT Healthcare Sector, teams have to perform intense amounts of testing on all aspects of the system (right from the specs, to the product, to the docs, to the training - the whole deal). Some of the testing can be done in house, some has to be signed off on by external bodies.

This kind of process is expensive, long and inflexible. None of these things is conducive to rapid development or innovation.

There's lots of great advice in this thread about location, and tips on how not to freak someone else out.

But one thing to keep in mind, probably tip number 1 in my mind anyways, is once you've met someone interesting, don't forget to pull the trigger.

By this, I mean you have to act if you want to get anywhere. Don't worry too much about the consequences of said actions, and play it relaxed. So, if you see a lady you might be interested in, strike up a conversation. See if you can get 5 minutes of not-uncomfortable small talk. If you can get that far, maybe ask if she'd like to continue the conversation over coffee. Don't suggest coffee at a later date (but don't argue if that's what she counters with) -- just do it.

Commit yourself to coffee and nothing more. Do your best to convince yourself that the entire meeting ends once the cup is empty, and just focus on having a meaningful encounter for 20 or 30 minutes.

If things are going well, hint that it would be fun to meet up again sometime. If she agrees, ask for her number.

When you call her back, have something interesting that you'd like to suggest doing. Dinner is always safe, but make sure the restaurant matches the girl (eg. if during coffee she mentioned that she moved from the coast to Wisconsin, and misses Indian food, see if you can find somewhere with a wicked curry - don't, however, just book a dinner at a nice restaurant and assume that's OK). Better than dinner, try finding an activity, with a fixed start and stop time, that could be fun for both of you. Maybe there's a con or a concert in the park, or you and some friends are heading to the beach for an afternoon with a bar-b-q (note: this is only a good idea if there are other ladies coming, four dudes on an empty beach will be creepy).

If you think things are going well, and you feel a spark, initiate some kind of physical encounter. Start with casual touch (putting your hand on her shoulder, or on the small of her back), then move up to less casual from there. The more basic contact there is, the less creepy non-standard contact will seem. That is, if you kiss someone out of nowhere it will feel strange. If you have already been in physical contact, it's the next logical step. Also, this gives you a good way to assess how she's feeling. If she recoils in terror, you're probably not getting lucky tonight. If she's fine with it, or if she seems into it, awesome. Then, by all means, man up and kiss her when the time seems good. (But don't' wait too long or she'll get confused and think that you're her new gay knitting friend. You have intentions, let her know them.) A lot of geeks fool themselves into not acting on the physical side, by saying things like 'I'm respecting her boundaries by letting her pick the level of physicality...' Blah blah blah, most (not all) women are taught to not initiate things like a first kiss - they are supposed to flirt and encourage you to act, but not to actually do it. If you don't, you'll both end up waiting.

At this point, I leave the rest up to you.

OK, so this seems like pretty basic advice, but all of this is a specific counter to something that would block your standard socially awkward introvert:

- Not starting a conversation. (Just talk to her!)
- Not asking for a date. (Coffee is a date, but isn't scary.)
- Putting too much pressure on the first date. (You're just meeting someone, not assessing their potential as a life partner)
- Not calling her back. (Why do people ask for numbers they won't use?)
- Being over the top, or too generic in the second date. (Pick specific, interesting, encounters. And yes, your selection is a test.)
- Scared of physical encounter. (Touching is good.)
- Not getting past the friend barrier. (Once you are kissing someone, they have a good idea of where the relationship is going.)

Actually, all of the above are great suggestions.
The stereotypical suggestion of bars, clubs, parties, etc probably aren't going to work. They are a waste of time for the most social person, and for someone that isn't social at all, it'll probably just end up being a lonely night in the corner drinking by yourself.

All of the above are places where you can meet someone and actually talk about a particular thing (so it gets you over the 'how do I talk to girls' problem).

The percentages are good information -- but they don't tell the whole story.

Many non-profits that I have worked for have fairly high operating costs (expenses), but do so because it increases their ability to fundraise (revenue) or help out the cause of their choice (profit).

What you're really talking about is the profit margin of an organization, and it's the basic business story we hear all the time in the for-profit sector.

We increase our expenses, because it will help drive revenues which ultimately give a greater return.
It's possible -- actually expected at certain points -- that this will reduce our profit margins, but it doesn't make the org any less successful. The net profit in these cases will often times be higher even though the percentage spent on operating is higher.

(Why did we spent 2 million on infrastructure? Because it will drive 2.5 million in sales revenue.... Would it have been better to spend 10,000 and get 40,000 back? In percentage terms, yes, but not in terms of actual value.)