My opinion is that Samsung's failure to make a "timely" objection is due entirely to the acceleration of burden that the judge's restrictive schedule placed on them, and not due to lack of diligence.
Hogan also made it difficult by deliberately hiding information during voir dire.
And if you're on the "forget about it and take your lumps" then the company that cheated you has every incentive to continue if they know they can get away with it.
This is why naming and shaming is good thing to have. It allows you to punish a company with bad press if they rip you off.
In the short run it may be more cost effective to roll over and take it. In the long run however deterrence has its value.
Unless the company has a personal grudge, they don't just cheat one person and then stop. They are creatures of habit and will go with whatever brings them the most money.
What about being in a cutthroat environment against competitors who have no scruples, are happy to bend every rule they can, and some of which are even brazen enough to outright break them and pay off politicians to look the other way?
Slashdot Mirror
This is nothing more than the strong oppressing the weak.
The weak being passengers and the strong being the feds.
I point out that the feds have put the TSA with a gun held to air commerce since everyone who boards a plane has to go through them.
So the TSA naturally feels no obligation to not abuse their power.
Since passengers don't have a choice, they have no leverage to resist it.
Add to this non refundable airline tickets and you have passengers locked in for abuse even before they arrive at the airport.
They aren't right.
It's just treason to disagree with them.
Nuclear radiation IS electromagnetic radiation.
That's what photons ARE, packets of electromagnetic impulses.
Gamma rays just happen to have higher frequencies than microwaves or radio waves, but fundamentally they are both light.
Darwin says yes.
Sounds like a strawman plant.
No, but being shorted on time is.
My opinion is that Samsung's failure to make a "timely" objection is due entirely to the acceleration of burden that the judge's restrictive schedule placed on them, and not due to lack of diligence.
Hogan also made it difficult by deliberately hiding information during voir dire.
Visa probably has to agree to swedish law to accept money for swedish businesses
Who wants to bet that Visa and Mastercard will follow the telecoms into getting retroactive immunity?
Exactly.
And if you're on the "forget about it and take your lumps" then the company that cheated you has every incentive to continue if they know they can get away with it.
This is why naming and shaming is good thing to have. It allows you to punish a company with bad press if they rip you off.
In the short run it may be more cost effective to roll over and take it. In the long run however deterrence has its value.
Unless the company has a personal grudge, they don't just cheat one person and then stop. They are creatures of habit and will go with whatever brings them the most money.
Why is name and shame against US law?
If it's true it can't well be libel or slander.
Seriously, I wanna know what stupid law on the books says we can't talk bad about bad companies.
Citation please?
So what?
Competition is good even if it doesn't take away customers. If all it provides is pressure to clean up their act, as a customer I still win.
Those politicians are held hostage by the fact that the corporations that pander to them also control the media they need to get elected.
What about being in a cutthroat environment against competitors who have no scruples, are happy to bend every rule they can, and some of which are even brazen enough to outright break them and pay off politicians to look the other way?
I'll listen to their cries about abuse of the tax system when they take their place at the front of the line themselves.
It doesn't matter.
If you piss off the elite they will come after you.
Maybe God simply has nothing to say.
If I were a supernatural being that respected free will, I might not like the notion of thundering down my voice from the heavens either.
And whose culture is it anyway?
Anoint it with prego and I'll believe in it.
It's called technical jargon.
It is legitimate because the purpose of a language is to communicate, not to give grammar nazis a job.
Kudos to linux for ditching it only when it became a pain to maintain co-compatibility with newer stuff.
Instead of yanking it preemptively to cattle-prod people onto the upgrade treadmill.
The people in power are only going to whine when their gravy train dries up.
Until then they're laughing all the way to the bank.
Free market means free on BOTH sides of the market.
Hint: If high profits ostensibly predicted to attract competition from other firms fails to do so, then something fishy is going on.
Such high profits ought to attract competition on the supply side of the market.
Shouldn't it?
So where is it?
Basic theory is that high profit attracts competition.
Competition lowers prices and thus profits.
So...why are profits still obscenely high?
I dunno, but sounds like the attracted competition isn't getting in the market to lower profits back down again.
I smell an anti-trust rat.
Lowering costs and thus raising profits eh?
Seems that the quid of lower IT wages should be offset by increased competition as a pro quo?
One of the theorems of supply economics is that profit attracts competition.
So long as that's actually the case, I don't mind IT wages going down.