If your business model doesn't pay people what they're worth, then you don't have a good enough business model. If your startup idea is compelling, people will work for less in exchange for equity.
Whoever pays the most should get the best workers. I don't understand why you would want it any other way. Isn't that the way it works for management?
That's not how it works.
How it works is the company is enticed to outsource the work to a contractor because the contractor is actually cheaper --because most of the workers are H1B. http://www.epi.org/blog/new-da...
The key phrase is "willing to work". Obviously if he pays more he'll find more talent. That he goes to India *instead of paying more* is literally proof that he ( or his company ) "cheaps out".
3D is a generally awful experience for most people. It's disorienting, uncomfortable, and doesn't look good for about 99% of the events that took the effort to record in 3D. It was also insanely expensive for a gimmick. It's the same gimmick that has been recurring every 20 or 30 years since the 50s. It still doesn't look any better than it did when it was first introduced. And, as has already been mentioned, having to wear glasses to watch tv sucks. For those that already wear glasses it double sucks.
If you have access to someone's phone, and a legitimate reason to ask, the phone company can easily give you their identity based on the phone's MEID and SIM card information. If it's a burner phone, you can still get more information about how/where it was purchased in a much shorter time than any of this information will provide about the person.
You are aware this is about 200 miles from NYC, right? NYC, one of, if not the single largest source of electricity consumption on the East Coast. This isn't actually "in the middle of the Atlantic"... it's a few miles off the coast.
heh, tried to share that on my FB:
The content you're trying to share includes a link that our security systems detected to be unsafe:
Please remove this link to continue.
If you think you're seeing this by mistake, please let us know.
To be fair, they called it Texas, first, not the USA.
This won't do anything. It's not like people are only using their phones to make an outgoing calls and then turning them off. People use smart phones to DO things. Whether that's accessing the internet or communicating with people via text or voice, the phone NEEDS radio signals to do that. "Man in the middle" systems exploit that for tracking. What Snowden and Huang are recommending isn't going to change that at all.
You keep telling yourself that. Even if a lawyer vetts it, that doesn't necessarily make it binding. Perhaps their lawyer advised them to sign it anyway, knowing that that particular clause was, in fact, not enforceable. Perhaps the lawyer didn't advise them anything of the sort because, at the time, it didn't matter to anyone. You don't know what you're talking about with respect to what they did or didn't understand in the contract.
I'll say it again, just because a contract is agreed to by both parties doesn't mean it's enforceable. Plenty of "legal" contracts get thrown out every day as non-binding or non-enforceable.
I can read. Just because you sign something you think is legal doesn't necessarily make it legal. There are hundreds of examples. Hell there was a recent slashdot article about people agreeing to give up their first born child in an EULA. Obviously that's not legally enforceable. If you think it is, you should do a lot more reading about the law.
It may have changed over the years...
My mom was a cashier (Farmer Jack's in MI) when I was growing up. When the tills were balanced at the end of the day, shortages came out of the cashier's pay. Interestingly, overages didn't go in the employees favor.
The fact that it happened didn't make it legal. Just another form of thief, actually.
Without ads isn't important to most people? I'll need a citation.
Ads are a great time to take a pee, get a new beer or soda, and chat with the SO.
So is the pause button.
That's irrelevant if the terms weren't legally binding. The question is whether or not the same type of terms apply to farm equipment as they do to personal vehicles.
"For a male and female to live continuously together is... biologically speaking, an extremely unnatural condition." -- Robert Briffault