Also it is beyond my understanding that someone tells us that what is being done is good for them without seeing there, talking to anyone working there. Don't you think it is way too arrogant to "know" what is good for them?
All I have to know is that the sweatshop workers decided, on their own free will, to go and work for Apple under those conditions to conclude that this is better for them than the alternatives. I am not arrogant enough to think I know better than they do what's good for them. Note that they might hate their job, but it's better than the alternatives.
This isn't true. TJX did not transmit credit card information over plaintext. This would have been better than what they actually did. TJX did something dumber: it transmitted the keys to the store server via WEP. The bad guys were able to use this to sign into the store server, then access the main server, and then put in a backdoor to capture all the credit card info used in all stores as opposed to that one store.
Pretend I am a private citizen and I own a plasma TV. I take my TV to and say, "I stole this TV from that loser across the street. You can have it for $1,000." You buy it.
Tort?
No. You actually did not steal my TV and so you did not actually cause me a recognizable harm. The state can run around with sting operations (as long as it avoids entrapment) because buying or attempting to buy a stolen television is a crime. As far as a private party goes, you consented so the act became legal.
If your facts are correct, then the guy is a moron. Being served has nothing to do with actual notice. You have have good service without actual notice and bad service with actual notice. Unless a judge in advance determined that sending an e-mail was a good way to make service, then he should have ignored the freaking e-mail. Getting an e-mail is not good service. The court did not have personal jurisdiction over him. If he is found to have consented to the jurisdiction then he'd be in trouble.
BUT the judge noted that a letter to the court is not making a formal appearance. He should HIRE A LAWYER and then try to get the case dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, making a special appearance to do so. It's basic law.
Sovereign immunity is a basic concept and is not unique to American jurisprudence. In an idealistic world, the government should be treated the same as everyone else, but the government is far different from you and me. It has responsibilities that no one else has, and there are many inherently political decisions that would be subverted if private citizens can sue. Imagine if the soldiers you sent to Iraq could sue the United States government for sending them into Iraq under false pretenses. Sure, that would be great in one sense, but by that same token we wouldn't have joined in World War II, either. Pretend you have to put a bus depot somewhere. The political process puts it into a poor neighborhood. They sue and hold things up. Without sovereign immunity, democracy would get set aside in favor of litigation.
That said, the United States government actually consents to be sued for many things. But it is its right as a sovereign to be exempt from the laws because its responsibilities and end goal (democratic representation through a political process) are different from those of private citizens.
Many poor African nations would kill to get "enslaved" by the United States in the manner you describe rather than starve their asses off or fear being mutilated by their enemies. There are bigger and badder monsters out there than Coke, Corp. Stop being a sensationalist jackass.
Major consumers of oil (such as airlines) buy options to normalize their business affairs. The price of oil futures have been going up tremendously, and this has been screwing over the legitimate consumers of oil futures: you know, the guys who actually take delivery of the oil. Normally, 20% of oil futures are owned by speculators, who are those who never intend to take delivery of the oil. Now, over 60% of the oil futures are owned by these speculators.
The facts of the case are not quite as open-and-shut as they seem. The plaintiffs used the comments of a few to bootstrap their case against others. A few anonymous trolls posted most of the libelous and offensive statements. However, the plaintiffs chose to sue the operator of the web site and other posters (one of whom said something like "I want to lick whipped cream off the plaintiff") just to spite and out them. The plaintiffs intentionally didn't serve the operator of the web site to make sure he couldn't respond in court, while they negotiated with his colleague using the removal of the operator from the web site from the suit as a bargaining chip.
The plaintiffs and their agents also started a libelous campaign against the operator of the web site to try to get him fired. They falsely stated that he had written the posts, which was not true. The operator of the web site has brought his own lawsuit against the plaintiffs in the first action and their attorneys. The complaint in the second case is pretty damning, if true, and it's too detailed to be all made up.
Biking is a great way to get in shape. Jump roping is another good cardiovascular exercise, and it also improves your hand eye coordination. I also recommend the Total Gym, which is promoted by Chuck Norris. It provides a quick way to exercise most of your major muscle groups in a fifteen minute session.
The holding of the Exxon Valdez case was limited to a peculiar point of maritime law. The points are similar and yet not applicable at all. (I am not being facetious; that's just how the law happens to be sometimes.)
Anyway, the point of contention is the difference between punitive damages and compensatory damages. If the compensatory damages are only $100, and the punitive damages are $1 million somethings wrong. But if there is debate as to what compensatory damages are (which there is) then the situation is not analogous.
Even a statute can be declared unconstitutional by the courts. The Constitution guarantees Due Process, which has been found to preclude damages that are mind-boggling overwhelming. For instance, punitive damages may be so excessive as to violate a defendant's due process rights. The case on point is BMW v. Gore. Dr. Ira Gore was awarded $4,000 in compensatory damages because the BMW he bought as new was repainted before he bought it, and this fact was not made known to him prior to the purchase. He was awarded $4 million in punitive damages, which was reduced to $2 million on appeal to the state supreme court. The US Supreme Court held that the punitive damages was grossly excessive because (1) the defendant's conduct was not that reprehensible; (2) the ratio to the compensatory damages awarded (actual or potential harm inflicted on the plaintiff) was very high; and (3) the criminal sanctions for the behavior was only $2,000.
It's about having the guy who knows everything to document it all.
I used to be that guy who knew the entire project. I thought it was crucial for me to know everything, so I remembered everything. All the minutiae, I knew back and forth. No single person on the team had that breadth of knowledge. Thus, I was working all the time.
Then I started to document everything in memos. I sent them around. I recorded everything. It took a whole bunch of time, but it was the best investment ever. I could delegate my work more effectively. There was a paper trail of everything, great records.
Do you think Europeans rape each other in prison all the time? I think Brits can laugh at the concept, but they don't have a problem with it.
I am a devout and patriot American but I find it my duty to stand up and fix the wrong things it does. No one is perfect, but America's strength has always been that it tries to uphold its ideals. Are you going to call Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. an America-hater because he criticized his government?
The kid was 17 years old at the time. Sure, he robbed a guy of fifty bucks at "gun" point. I am not taking away from the terror his victim felt. He should have done some time. But if he spent a year or two in a jail or probation, he would have grown up to be a nice citizen and not a degenerate who pursued a life of crime. Instead, he got raped, and as a 17 year old, he had to go through his life with that trauma.
No, it is not a good way to run a patent office but judicially-crafted patent rules are applied to previously-issued patents. The Patent Office and the court system are two separate entities on different branches of government. The courts are supposed to defer to the Patent Office but the courts always have the right to just do whatever they think is right.
For example, the KSR case has caused many patents to be rendered obvious. The KSR rule has been applied to patents issued before the decision. It's bad for "intellectual property rights" but there is a legitimate debate to be had concerning the bounds of the rights and whether the government can "seize" them if they are overly broad.
People talk about "inhumane" prison systems such as those in Iran (they cut your hands off!) or Saudi Arabia (they have public hangings and beheadings!) but we have gang-rape that is basically sanctioned by the state. Americans think their prison system is cushy but if they only knew the truth to the ass-rape joke they make they would be inclined to do something about it.
I love America. That's why I try to improve it (by criticizing its failures) so we can do more to improve it. It's un-American, I think, to rest on the laurels of our forefathers and say, "America is number one!" without doing anything to make it better.
Prison rape is a serious problem in the United States, where over 2.1 million people are incarcerated. Depending on the statistics you believe, there are more men raped in prison then women are raped outside of prison. And it is not the "real" criminals who are the victims. For example, a 17-year-old boy was gang-raped in prison after he robbed a guy with a toy gun. Sure, the robbery was a stupid thing to do, but our society punished him by putting him in jail, not to have him gang-raped. Victims of gang-rape risk getting STDs including HIV, which effectively renders a prison sentence for forging a check into a death sentence. Our nation's drug laws have placed many in jail for relatively small crimes. These people are in danger of being raped.
Only people in the United States think it is funny that prisoners are being raped. Prison guards and administrators do not care about this problem, and it is unconstitutionally cruel to allow this to happen. I am not a softie liberal; on the contrary, I believe in the strict letter of the law. We sentence people to jail, or to die. We do not sentence them to get gang-raped for the rest of their lives. (Believe me, I'd be all in favor of getting the real criminals who rape and murder others to be raped themselves for the rest of their lives, but quite expectedly, it is those people who are doing the raping in prison.)
Most non-disclosure agreements make an exception for information obtained through legal means from those with the right to disseminate it, publicly known, or that is already known to the recipient. Is there confirmation that these exceptions are not in the Apple NDA in question?
Being indispensable in one role will prevent you from being promoted. I was up for a coveted project but it was assigned to a less qualified person because I was too indispensable in my current project. Lest you think management was just letting me down softly, they had me train the person who was assigned the coveted project. That's right. They had me train the person who took the good job, and had me stay on my less-good project because I was really good at my current project.
I'm now trying to become a manager on the other project. They'll probably say that I don't have any experience in the field and promote the person who has it now, but we'll see.
Slashdot Mirror
Also it is beyond my understanding that someone tells us that what is being done is good for them without seeing there, talking to anyone working there. Don't you think it is way too arrogant to "know" what is good for them?
All I have to know is that the sweatshop workers decided, on their own free will, to go and work for Apple under those conditions to conclude that this is better for them than the alternatives. I am not arrogant enough to think I know better than they do what's good for them. Note that they might hate their job, but it's better than the alternatives.
Dude. Would you try to stop the Terminator from going where he wants to go?
This isn't true. TJX did not transmit credit card information over plaintext. This would have been better than what they actually did. TJX did something dumber: it transmitted the keys to the store server via WEP. The bad guys were able to use this to sign into the store server, then access the main server, and then put in a backdoor to capture all the credit card info used in all stores as opposed to that one store.
Pretend I am a private citizen and I own a plasma TV. I take my TV to and say, "I stole this TV from that loser across the street. You can have it for $1,000." You buy it.
Tort?
No. You actually did not steal my TV and so you did not actually cause me a recognizable harm. The state can run around with sting operations (as long as it avoids entrapment) because buying or attempting to buy a stolen television is a crime. As far as a private party goes, you consented so the act became legal.
If your facts are correct, then the guy is a moron. Being served has nothing to do with actual notice. You have have good service without actual notice and bad service with actual notice. Unless a judge in advance determined that sending an e-mail was a good way to make service, then he should have ignored the freaking e-mail. Getting an e-mail is not good service. The court did not have personal jurisdiction over him. If he is found to have consented to the jurisdiction then he'd be in trouble.
BUT the judge noted that a letter to the court is not making a formal appearance. He should HIRE A LAWYER and then try to get the case dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, making a special appearance to do so. It's basic law.
Ooh, I'm a troll! Yeah. The people in the Sudan are SO FUCKING HAPPY they aren't a part of the American hegemony. Dumb fuck moderators.
Sovereign immunity is a basic concept and is not unique to American jurisprudence. In an idealistic world, the government should be treated the same as everyone else, but the government is far different from you and me. It has responsibilities that no one else has, and there are many inherently political decisions that would be subverted if private citizens can sue. Imagine if the soldiers you sent to Iraq could sue the United States government for sending them into Iraq under false pretenses. Sure, that would be great in one sense, but by that same token we wouldn't have joined in World War II, either. Pretend you have to put a bus depot somewhere. The political process puts it into a poor neighborhood. They sue and hold things up. Without sovereign immunity, democracy would get set aside in favor of litigation.
That said, the United States government actually consents to be sued for many things. But it is its right as a sovereign to be exempt from the laws because its responsibilities and end goal (democratic representation through a political process) are different from those of private citizens.
Many poor African nations would kill to get "enslaved" by the United States in the manner you describe rather than starve their asses off or fear being mutilated by their enemies. There are bigger and badder monsters out there than Coke, Corp. Stop being a sensationalist jackass.
Major consumers of oil (such as airlines) buy options to normalize their business affairs. The price of oil futures have been going up tremendously, and this has been screwing over the legitimate consumers of oil futures: you know, the guys who actually take delivery of the oil. Normally, 20% of oil futures are owned by speculators, who are those who never intend to take delivery of the oil. Now, over 60% of the oil futures are owned by these speculators.
Holy shit! Are you kidding? If the Republicans shut down the Democrats' discussion IT'D BE FUCKING LAST TWELVE YEARS!
The facts of the case are not quite as open-and-shut as they seem. The plaintiffs used the comments of a few to bootstrap their case against others. A few anonymous trolls posted most of the libelous and offensive statements. However, the plaintiffs chose to sue the operator of the web site and other posters (one of whom said something like "I want to lick whipped cream off the plaintiff") just to spite and out them. The plaintiffs intentionally didn't serve the operator of the web site to make sure he couldn't respond in court, while they negotiated with his colleague using the removal of the operator from the web site from the suit as a bargaining chip.
The plaintiffs and their agents also started a libelous campaign against the operator of the web site to try to get him fired. They falsely stated that he had written the posts, which was not true. The operator of the web site has brought his own lawsuit against the plaintiffs in the first action and their attorneys. The complaint in the second case is pretty damning, if true, and it's too detailed to be all made up.
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:XFH9CX3EBhsJ:abovethelaw.com/images/IravaniComplaint.pdf+ciolli+v.+heller&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&lr=lang_en&client=firefox-a
http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/23920
Biking is a great way to get in shape. Jump roping is another good cardiovascular exercise, and it also improves your hand eye coordination. I also recommend the Total Gym, which is promoted by Chuck Norris. It provides a quick way to exercise most of your major muscle groups in a fifteen minute session.
The holding of the Exxon Valdez case was limited to a peculiar point of maritime law. The points are similar and yet not applicable at all. (I am not being facetious; that's just how the law happens to be sometimes.)
Anyway, the point of contention is the difference between punitive damages and compensatory damages. If the compensatory damages are only $100, and the punitive damages are $1 million somethings wrong. But if there is debate as to what compensatory damages are (which there is) then the situation is not analogous.
Even a statute can be declared unconstitutional by the courts. The Constitution guarantees Due Process, which has been found to preclude damages that are mind-boggling overwhelming. For instance, punitive damages may be so excessive as to violate a defendant's due process rights. The case on point is BMW v. Gore. Dr. Ira Gore was awarded $4,000 in compensatory damages because the BMW he bought as new was repainted before he bought it, and this fact was not made known to him prior to the purchase. He was awarded $4 million in punitive damages, which was reduced to $2 million on appeal to the state supreme court. The US Supreme Court held that the punitive damages was grossly excessive because (1) the defendant's conduct was not that reprehensible; (2) the ratio to the compensatory damages awarded (actual or potential harm inflicted on the plaintiff) was very high; and (3) the criminal sanctions for the behavior was only $2,000.
It's about having the guy who knows everything to document it all.
I used to be that guy who knew the entire project. I thought it was crucial for me to know everything, so I remembered everything. All the minutiae, I knew back and forth. No single person on the team had that breadth of knowledge. Thus, I was working all the time.
Then I started to document everything in memos. I sent them around. I recorded everything. It took a whole bunch of time, but it was the best investment ever. I could delegate my work more effectively. There was a paper trail of everything, great records.
Don't be that guy!
Okay. This was one guy who should have been sent to a pound-me-in-the-ass prison.
Point to a mainstream movie made out of the United States that makes fun of prison rape like Naked Gun (oh the soap IS slippery).
Do you think Europeans rape each other in prison all the time? I think Brits can laugh at the concept, but they don't have a problem with it.
I am a devout and patriot American but I find it my duty to stand up and fix the wrong things it does. No one is perfect, but America's strength has always been that it tries to uphold its ideals. Are you going to call Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. an America-hater because he criticized his government?
The kid was 17 years old at the time. Sure, he robbed a guy of fifty bucks at "gun" point. I am not taking away from the terror his victim felt. He should have done some time. But if he spent a year or two in a jail or probation, he would have grown up to be a nice citizen and not a degenerate who pursued a life of crime. Instead, he got raped, and as a 17 year old, he had to go through his life with that trauma.
I'd much rather get indefinitely water-boarded, stacked into naked piles of men, and bitten by dogs than ass-raped for a year.
No, it is not a good way to run a patent office but judicially-crafted patent rules are applied to previously-issued patents. The Patent Office and the court system are two separate entities on different branches of government. The courts are supposed to defer to the Patent Office but the courts always have the right to just do whatever they think is right.
For example, the KSR case has caused many patents to be rendered obvious. The KSR rule has been applied to patents issued before the decision. It's bad for "intellectual property rights" but there is a legitimate debate to be had concerning the bounds of the rights and whether the government can "seize" them if they are overly broad.
People talk about "inhumane" prison systems such as those in Iran (they cut your hands off!) or Saudi Arabia (they have public hangings and beheadings!) but we have gang-rape that is basically sanctioned by the state. Americans think their prison system is cushy but if they only knew the truth to the ass-rape joke they make they would be inclined to do something about it.
I love America. That's why I try to improve it (by criticizing its failures) so we can do more to improve it. It's un-American, I think, to rest on the laurels of our forefathers and say, "America is number one!" without doing anything to make it better.
Prison rape is a serious problem in the United States, where over 2.1 million people are incarcerated. Depending on the statistics you believe, there are more men raped in prison then women are raped outside of prison. And it is not the "real" criminals who are the victims. For example, a 17-year-old boy was gang-raped in prison after he robbed a guy with a toy gun. Sure, the robbery was a stupid thing to do, but our society punished him by putting him in jail, not to have him gang-raped. Victims of gang-rape risk getting STDs including HIV, which effectively renders a prison sentence for forging a check into a death sentence. Our nation's drug laws have placed many in jail for relatively small crimes. These people are in danger of being raped.
Only people in the United States think it is funny that prisoners are being raped. Prison guards and administrators do not care about this problem, and it is unconstitutionally cruel to allow this to happen. I am not a softie liberal; on the contrary, I believe in the strict letter of the law. We sentence people to jail, or to die. We do not sentence them to get gang-raped for the rest of their lives. (Believe me, I'd be all in favor of getting the real criminals who rape and murder others to be raped themselves for the rest of their lives, but quite expectedly, it is those people who are doing the raping in prison.)
Most non-disclosure agreements make an exception for information obtained through legal means from those with the right to disseminate it, publicly known, or that is already known to the recipient. Is there confirmation that these exceptions are not in the Apple NDA in question?
Being indispensable in one role will prevent you from being promoted. I was up for a coveted project but it was assigned to a less qualified person because I was too indispensable in my current project. Lest you think management was just letting me down softly, they had me train the person who was assigned the coveted project. That's right. They had me train the person who took the good job, and had me stay on my less-good project because I was really good at my current project.
I'm now trying to become a manager on the other project. They'll probably say that I don't have any experience in the field and promote the person who has it now, but we'll see.