True, which is why that elimination needs to be paired with a loser pays system.
I dunno but I'm not much of a fan of finality if it means that miscarriages of justice get set in stone.
The appeals process is a nice compromise except for the fact that even THEY are overburdened enough and often give the bird to any cases they don't care about.
They will take your money, they'll just sue it out of you instead of taking it at retail.
Remember the lady who got sued while in the hospital and got greeted by a default judgement when she came out? That's the kind of people we're dealing with.
And don't give me the BS line that she should have answered the complaint. The bastards should not have sued her to begin with and their victory was just exploitation of a legal loophole.
I would rather eliminate the res judicata that forces attorneys to unload a full larder of motions at trial just to make sure nothing gets locked out at appeal.
Slashdot Mirror
GPL: "When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price"
So in other words, free as in speech, not free as in beer.
...breach of privacy?
If that's the reason behind statutory damages then they should at least give the defendent the option of bearing the burden of proving actual damages.
Can you imagine the liability issues?
Never EVER try to do a good deed in America. You will be sued into oblivion.
I do wish though that there was an electronic version of a good samaratin law.
To be clear, I only think that cases should be revisited when the one who wants to do so bears the cost and burden of proof.
Possible refund if he proves he was right.
And until such time as he proves his case, the other side doesn't even get bothered.
True, which is why that elimination needs to be paired with a loser pays system.
I dunno but I'm not much of a fan of finality if it means that miscarriages of justice get set in stone.
The appeals process is a nice compromise except for the fact that even THEY are overburdened enough and often give the bird to any cases they don't care about.
How competent are rasset's lawyers anyway?
They will take your money, they'll just sue it out of you instead of taking it at retail.
Remember the lady who got sued while in the hospital and got greeted by a default judgement when she came out? That's the kind of people we're dealing with.
And don't give me the BS line that she should have answered the complaint. The bastards should not have sued her to begin with and their victory was just exploitation of a legal loophole.
Electricity is something I'd consider consumable...
I would rather eliminate the res judicata that forces attorneys to unload a full larder of motions at trial just to make sure nothing gets locked out at appeal.
No, hiding material terms in wierd places is good practice, if you're profit minded and don't have a sense of ethics.
What better way to snooker your clients than to make sure they don't get wise to draconian terms?
Then why was "a well regulated militia" mentioned in the 2nd amendment?
Sorry to be a gun-rights party pooper, but I have a hunch there's more than meets the eye here.
When companies like DieBold can make voting machines I'd much rather not have a direct democracy anyway.
The writing in the constitution doesn't mean squat when greedy plutocrats that have the REAL power successfully corrupt our leaders.
On a practical reality scale, how is that different from a kingdom with one demesne and 50 barons, er, governors?
Hey now, be nice.
When a PHB condescends to ask for help on managing an IT issue, we should be grateful at their humility and give them a good answer.
And my answer is this:
Treat your outsourcee the same way you would treat any other employee.
Take a look at the data that's potentially exposable.
If you're vulnerable, get a lawyer to write up an iron contract to make sure your ass is covered.
I would hope though that the contractor who screwed up on trusting his contractor (your subcontractor) would at least be on the hook.
I'll have my email fees donated to BigSpamCompany, my employer.
Nice in theory but this is too easy to get around.
Maybe it's because security would also stop corporate fat cats from siphoning from the till?
Coercion blocks consent, and lack of consent is rape.
Just be glad you don't get 200 lashes for being a rape victim like they do in some countries in the middle east...
Simple.
Ground the kid for defying his parents.
Confiscate his computer and work it over with a sledgehammer.
Seriously though, disobedience should be a punishable offense. I had my computer "seized and forfeited" once, and I behaved better after that.
Nuclear waste isn't a trivial problem.
A nuclear reactor also happens to be the ideal target for a terrorist attack.
You should sue their asses off.
Not to mention release of debt after every 7 years.