lbatx

Yes, and it fits into option #2. It is work directly related to the company. And?

Sorry, this isn't the only practical way for software companies. There are three main approaches: no mention at all (vague and bad for all parties), ownership of all related ideas developed on company time/company equipment [this is the only type of contract I will sign], and the company owns everything you do at any time.

Since both #2 and #3 have been used by companies, clearly #3 can't be the "only practical way".

> > Your game designer works for a year and invents 7 games. At the end of the year, she sues you, claiming that she owns 4 of them, because those particular games were invented between 5pm and 9am, when she wasn’t on duty.

This is a terrible example. If the game designer delivers you 7 games during the year, that's a pretty clear indication that they are for you and are works for hire under the contract.

Also, if you are hiring her for game design, then off hours, she can't design games, because that is directly competitive. She can, however, design software that manages greenhouses. And that is as it should be.

If there are any games she designed on her own time that she doesn't want to be yours, she wouldn't have given them to you. If she kept one, launched it herself, and made a ton of money, you would probably have a claim. But she has no claim to games she gave you.

[Could she still sue? Sure, every example can be made into some court case with a possible terrible outcome -- that's called life. But this is not a realistic problem.]

> Termux always pubished me for them so I learned to be precise.

I don't think it worked.

Do you think that hackers as a market aren't, by near definition, early adopters and want new technology? I don't know who else a 10 year old phone would appeal to but parts of the mass market?

Are you presuming they won't drop a robot in the self-driving car to bring you your food?

How does the leader give feedback in your model? Can the leader never chime in with some advice that might be helpful to the situation?

You sure about that? You sure it's not on the person who, knowing that, still chooses to use Netflix?

Note: not defending Netflix's position on VPNs, just pointing out that the user still has free will.

I believe subtitling is done from the script for a show, which is why sometimes what is on the screen doesn't match what the actress says. Typically, it's the same concept, just with slightly different words. They probably just load it up and make sure it's synced.

CC (I think) is done live by transcribing what is actually said. That's certainly true for live events where there is no script.

At my previous company, I was the hiring manager and gave a homework assignment that was targeted a little shorter than you describe, at right about 2-3 hours. I was clear upfront that it would take about that long, though if you wanted to take longer, you could. Within reason, I didn't hold the time against the person if they took longer.

The crazy thing was that over half of the applicants that passed a resume screen and phone interview could not complete the homework assignment. Over half. Some couldn't get it at all (either gave up or had compile errors), some got it to run but it didn't work, a few got it to mostly work but their programs had serious bugs, and the last few actually got it right.

The assignment was to read a file containing a list of numbers (some formatted incorrectly, so there was some very simple parsing logic involved), call an API using each correctly formatted number as a parameter, and store what the API returned to a file.

I'm still shocked over half of developers couldn't accomplish that task. Makes me wonder what they were accomplishing in their existing roles.

There is something called "lying by omission" or telling the truth, but not the whole truth.

Also, if you are told to resign or you will be fired, that's not resigning on your own terms.

Because a cop was nice to you once doesn't mean he isn't a bad apple. Just means he was nice to you once.

Correct. In addition, someone covering up for a bad apple is, well, a bad apple.

Yes, this will deter police from retaliating. Rulings like this in other circuits already have. Will it stop it completely? Of course not.

No, they cannot (lawfully) hold you for 24 hours with no reason.

Quick lesson (note: everything I say below is about what is legal, not what might happen -- people (including cops) can do illegal things after all):

Reasonable Articulable Suspicion (RAS) -- A set of specific facts that would cause a reasonable person to believe a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed. You may be detained if a cop has RAS on you. But RAS is a pretty low bar.

If a cop has RAS and is detaining you, he's trying to get Probable Cause (PC) to arrest you. Talking will likely help him get it. I suggest you use your right to remain silent.

If a cop has PC, you can be arrested. In that case, you might spend the weekend in jail before having an opportunity to get bail, or they might just release you.

If you have been unlawfully detained or arrested, you can sue. It won't be easy to win, but you can sue. In many cases, police officers have what is called Qualified Immunity (QI). This means they literally cannot be sued.

But now, in the Fifth Circuit, it's a clearly established right to record. This means that the officers would lose QI and could be sued for their actions.

Already done. IBM Watson has been doing this for more than three years. Was world class already in 2014.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ibms-watson-may-soon-be-the-b...

Sorry for the late reply, but "briefly distracting" tells me it's clear you don't understand "the zone".

Why quit the app vs set your status to busy/DND?

How is context switching costly for you, but only briefly distracting for your colleague?

> I hope not, since that's not a thing that's illegal.

It doesn't have to be illegal to be a valid point in a civil suit. Things that are legal can be prohibited by contract.

Whether it's illegal or not is irrelevant.

I think you did a fine job articulating the difference.

It's not the fact that there are bad apples people are angry about (we understand there are bad apples in every profession). It's the absolute lack of accountability that is the issue.

He was born in 1966. Let's split the difference. (If I were to be a pain, he did literally grow up partially in the 60's, contrary to your flat "no").

Some 60's (including seeing 60's shows in the early 70's in reruns), mostly 70's, and then 80's through '84.

Also, Starsky and Hutch & Barney Miller in his formative years. I think my point still stands.

What's worse is that this is highly unlikely to be the only case in which Forcelli sent the wrong person to jail. I don't know if he's come to that realization yet.

You have to remember he grew up in the 60's and 70's, so you can't use today's cop shows. Back then, they had things like Dragnet and Adam-12, which portrayed things differently.

Exactly. Plus the phrasing of the criticism is so odd: "no longer contributing to the business." Let's all accept that as true, so allowing original employees' to purchase for a longer time period simply preserves their ability to be rewarded for their work. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. Plus, the dilution argument is pretty weak: the employee pool is usually 10-20%. So investors get diluted by 10%. Whoopee.

The mere fact that he's financing a lawsuit against a major customer/partner of Facebook should be enough to have him removed from the Board. He's actively working against the company's interests.