danssig

50 ms·

541.
by danssig 15y ago
It's not that the bully isn't willing to accept responsibility. He just wants to deal with each complaint individually. In a dark alley with no witnesses.
542.
by danssig 15y ago
Hilarious that you talk about "anti-business" rhetoric and then respond with gems like: >as for "punishing the company", in reality you are only "punishing" those who buy from them since they will just increase the price to cover the ex
543.
by danssig 15y ago
Irrelevant to the point. The person really and truly believes something bad is going to happen to you, regardless of why.
544.
by danssig 15y ago
This shouldn't even be legal. Since it probably is; I think these days most people are probably buying a PS3 for PSN so if users can no longer access it they should bring the device back and demand their money bag. If Sony gets away with t
545.
by danssig 15y ago
I did read it. Missed that part though, my mistake.
546.
by danssig 15y ago
>There are plenty of religious organisations whose purpose is to line the leaders' pockets with money. These seems to imply that other non-profits don't. Otherwise why point out one specific group?
547.
by danssig 15y ago
Yes exactly. Having worked for several big banks it is simply inconceivable that no one knew what this guy was doing. Which is probably why his immediate boss resigned immediately after the police took him away.
548.
by danssig 15y ago
How did tin-foil-hat-esque nut-jobbery get voted so high? I wanted an iPad precisely because it isn't a "limitless and powerful computer". I wanted a multipurpose appliance that requires minimal (idealy 0) maintenance. Newsflash for you
549.
by danssig 15y ago
Who said anyone is ok with you going to hell? What would you have them do about it? I assume your answer will be "stop believing in it", to which I'll answer: should I take the same tact if I see you smoking? Assume cancer doesn't exist?
550.
by danssig 15y ago
>This is outright willful ignorance. There are plenty of religious organisations whose purpose is to line the leaders' pockets with money. As opposed to other non-profits? The willful ignorance here is yours. You don't seem to know ho
551.
by danssig 15y ago
Exactly. To be honest I've always just assumed these clauses were invalid and signed them. It isn't logical that one can sign away their rights beyond their employment.
552.
by danssig 15y ago
Ah, I think people are downvoting you because they thought you meant CA's clause flies in the face of free-agency. You actually meant no-compete clauses do, right? If so, yes, that's the point of them.
553.
by danssig 15y ago
>since it limits their options and makes it harder to jump ship. A confidentiality agreement does not provide the same limitations -- it doesn't prevent the employee from quitting and getting a new job. Exactly. It's purely a mechanism
554.
by danssig 15y ago
>But they can hint, and work towards that secret without telling anyone. They may even let it slip by accident. >Non-competes are designed to prevent Worker X from revealing this secret, even by accident. If the person is willing to
555.
by danssig 15y ago
But she did lose a valid employment opportunity because of it. That needs to stop.
556.
by danssig 15y ago
>there is obviously an element of competition here As there should be. Do you not like free markets? >her regular clients may follow her Good. Her value is not "doing hair" it's attracting clients (i.e. you can be very good at doi
557.
by danssig 15y ago
>Taking your clients (that old employer invested in bringing in) is obviously unfair competition. No it isn't, it's normal practice. In a customer facing profession you are the product being sold. If you have a developed a big clien
558.
by danssig 15y ago
>That's the stuff you can only learn by working in the industry. That's what makes an employee valuable. That's the real skills, the stuff you won't learn in school. So what? I learned some stuff from the company I worked for and they
559.
by danssig 15y ago
wtf? Are you posting from the 70's or something? Companies of today are not remotely loyal. Why should employees be? Years ago companies had to actually pay to train employees in whatever programming language they use. Now they get us
560.
by danssig 15y ago
I'd like to see any case where a non-compete makes sense. And if you can find one, also show how a confidentiality agreement wouldn't make more sense. As far as the hairdresser shouldn't sign, what if all his/her potential employers
561.
by danssig 15y ago
Interesting stuff. Does anyone have a "goto" list of IOS libraries documented anywhere? I've heard there's a nice DRM library for IOS apps but I haven't had any luck finding it so far.
562.
by danssig 15y ago
The point wasn't that Jobs/Ellison/Gates are great role models. I was showing that everyone that many would consider evil has also shown benevolence. There is nothing that makes the google founders stand out. In fact, I can't really thin
563.
by danssig 15y ago
It does not take a mammoth anymore. A small group with a big idea can change the world these days. We don't need Google.
564.
by danssig 15y ago
Really? Getting a bunch of developers locked into a platform and then raising prices sometimes 100 times more than it was? What would they have to do for it to be a scandal for you? If Apple suddenly came out and said "right, from today o
565.
by danssig 15y ago
This is one of the reasons I hate Google. I love to see normal people like me go make a startup and become successful. Escaping their corporate bonds. With companies like Google around who can use ad income to supplement dabbling in all
566.
by danssig 15y ago
Even worse is the Orwellian Google love that's shitting all over this thread. Bill Gates started a charity because charities suck so bad and he wanted his billions to accomplish something. Steve Jobs doesn't even take money for his work (
567.
by danssig 15y ago
Haha, if you want to disagree with my rose-colored review of why Google are so benevolent then please do a bunch of work so I can just sit here nitpick with nearly no effort on my part.
568.
by danssig 15y ago
They pulled out of China because the government was hacking them! Do you think they had some knight-in-shining-armour reason? That was all just PR.
569.
by danssig 15y ago
Is it going to be the same thing they sell on the desktop? That's the goal, right? So it's PC in tablet form. Just like every time they've tried it before.
570.
by danssig 15y ago
>why did it pull out of China? Do you mean "why did they make a big rant about pulling out of China and then not actually do it until they were literally cyber-attacked by the government"? Google was never all that big in China anyway.

More ›