Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | WingForward's commentslogin

In the documentation, I didn't see where I can give control of the screen. That's a difference. But it's a good feature to have.


And you should take a sample of living bees and see what the insecticide concentration is in those guys. That alone would prove or disprove a link, but would give clues for further investigation.


TTY users are declining. I don't know the statistics, but 80% of my interaction with the Deaf is by Videophone (VP) (aka video relay service (VRS)).

Training staff on how a VRS or TTY relay call works is pretty simple. A few general rules are: 1) Talk as if you are addressing the Deaf person directly (don't say, "tell her hello", say "hello"). 2) Speak in discrete chunks of meaning with pauses in between to give the interpreter a chance to catch up. 3) Expect everything you say to be interpreted.


No, she's on the dole by choice. She was 25 years old, making $60K a year and quit for another job. Then she chose to quit that job too.


She signed the non-compete agreement in 2007 when she was 22 or so. Life is not exactly black and white as you try to portray these things to be.


> Just before July 4th, Angela, a 26 year-old Boston University alumna, was laid off from her job as a software trainer.

She was fired after her previous employer threatened legal action. You can't say she "chose to quit" that job.


"Angela worked at Bullhorn for about three years. She left the company on her own terms in October 2010 to work as a software trainer at a Boston-area hospital, but after seven months decided "it wasn't what I wanted to do." So she took a job as a business analyst with another company that sells software to recruiters."

She chose to quit two jobs before running into trouble at her third.

And "sic" is used to imply that the original quote was grammatically incorrect. Your usage implies I misused the word "chose" when you should have rephrased your sentence to make the tense correct.


Whether she had zero, one or several jobs in between is immaterial. Bringing it up borders on ad hominem

Also, Fixed the tense on the previous comment, sorry.


If it was immaterial, why quibble with me on the facts?

It's not though. The whole article presents her as unemployed because of the NCA. That's inaccurate. She can and did work in her field.


But she did lose a valid employment opportunity because of it. That needs to stop.


I have little sympathy for Angela.

In this story, you had a 21 year-old work for a company for three years. That company invested time in a green worker. After three months, maybe after two years, she actually started producing for the company.

After she is trained and producing for her company, she quits and gets another job in the same field (but not a direct competitor).

She quits that and tried to work for a competitor of her original employer and is let go.

She is collecting unemployment (possibly at the combined expense of employers 1, 2, & 3 and the people of Massachusetts).

I don't see what the inequity here is.


Outlawing non-competes would make employers less likely to hire because they're not just about trade secrets.

They're about encouraging employers to make the investment in a new employee, knowing the time and effort put into that person isn't going to be easily transferred to a competitor.

That said, you can negotiate a non-compete, either doing away with it completely, or changing the terms.

Non-competes generally have at least three limiting features: industry, time, and region.

You can negotiate on the industry side: from "same industry" to "company's direct competitors".

You can negotiate on the region:"the Northeast" to "New England" to "metro Boston".

And you can negotiate on the time: twelve months, to six, to three.

I've just thought of this, but I think it would be fair it limit the non-competes based on the time worked in a position in a company. Less than one month and more than five years in a position, the non-compete clause goes away. Or the terms change.


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 to pay for that ourselves in college (this is why so many universities switched to Java).

In my whole career I've always gotten my best salary increases by moving. If companies want to keep me around the way to do it is not with a modern form of slavery but rather by keeping me happy. If they have some stupid rule that says the max raise per year is 3% and I can get 8% somewhere else then fuck them.


Oh, you know how to program? Ok, great, that's the minimum you need to get a job. I hope you can read too.

But what do you know about the clients? Who at Company B needs to be handled with kid gloves? Who likes it when you're pushy? How much can you negotiate with Company C on the timeline? What are the strengths of the other developers both in house and at other firms?

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.


Sort of. Programming is justifiably considered a profession, like engineering, medicine, and the law -- as distinguished from other careers like sales and customer support. The distinction is a large body of background knowledge and skills that have to be acquired as a baseline for doing a job.

In a profession, learning things like clients' preferences can be vital to performing a job effectively, but it's overly reductionist to call them "the real skills", even if that might be true in, say, a sales position.


>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 get the financial benefit for my creations long after I'm gone (at least potentially). I call that even (actually I already consider this advantage: company. I'd like to be getting residuals like people other industries do). If you don't want me to leave then make it attractive enough for me that I can't do so rationally.


iHate?


well, more ithinkyouarenotveryniceandsoiwontplaywithyousothere or, perhaps better, ifyouwantmyrespectgrowthefuckupandearnit


"Let me say that again: Attacking a market incumbent on an area of it's core strength - It's hardest in technology companies."


What is the point of the asterisk at the end of the request?

Oh, and something about the page with the circle on it prevents my browser from reloading.


Do you know how long it takes for your donation to have the impact you expect it should?

Does a day make a difference? A week? A month?

I don't know the answer to that, but I'd like to, but not enough to do the research myself.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: