It would be very possible. I got a wii about 2 months ago and I've bought a single wii game since then. I want to buy more, I eagerly scan the videogame store shelf every week, but the games tend to be underwhelming at best.
Pensions make up massive amounts of the stock market through sheer weight of numbers, it's hardly a bad call making sure they're getting everything they should for their members retirement funds, is it?
Furthermore the pension fund managers have a very strict legal duty to safeguard the members' money. It's their job to launch these kinds of lawsuits.
He falls for it every time and she never fails to pull it away at the last second (I keep hoping there's one strip where she doesn't pull it away, but I never saw it.... anyone?).
I seem to remember a strip where she finally decided to be nice and not pull it away, but he still missed the ball and kicked her hand instead.
To those of us who actually have to live in the same city as these trust fund ivy league rejects, it's just an excuse for rich kids to drink and throw up all over union square.
Ahh, NYU, desperately trying to buy its way to prominence. Where suburban kids get to live the bohemian life for 4 years in their $2000 a month dorm rooms (well at least the good aspects of the bohemian lifestyle, not actually any of the yucky poverty aspects) before ultimately moving back to the suburbs to raise another generation of mindlessly boring, cookie-cutter pseudointellectual poseurs.
Half of the operating costs of a nuclear power plant used to be fighting lawsuits trying to shut it down, and protestors keeping their employees out.
The costs of operating a nuclear power plant are dwarfed by the costs of building one. And those costs aren't driven by lawsuits. The main reason there haven't been new plants built in a long while is because they're hideously expensive.
We still have the problem of nuclear waste disposal, but it would eliminate a great deal of carbon emissions.
And it's a huge problem. This is why I find it frustrating to debate nuclear power on slashdot. You can't gloss over the disposal issue like that.
They insist we fix their problem in 48 hours when they can't even describe the problem accurately enough to reproduce. They need us and beg us for help and resent every second of it.
Since it's your incompetence which created the problem, maybe it really is up to you to figure it out and fix it? If you write buggy code, expect your customers to complain. You should feel some sort of embarassment here for having them point out your mistakes.
Perhaps because the barrier to entry for online gaming is lower than having an actual product to sell and the means to efficiently distribute it?
Also the transfer of physical property leaves a much bigger trail for auditors to follow. Knowing whether you got dealt a flush or a pair is a bit harder to deduce.
All this over a CIA "operative" whose was not a covert agent. Per federal regulations, she was no longer considered covert because she had not received a covert assignment in over five years.
She was a covert agent at the time of Novak's column. Anyone who says otherwise is just making stuff up.
Then the judge rules something that I can't remember, but basically you, the email deleter, gets into trouble and possibly loses the case.
Three things that could happen:
1. The judge can find that your deletion creates a presumption that the e-mails were damaging.
2. The judge can enter sanctions against you for discovery abuses.
3. Depending on the laws the court is operating under, the other side might be able to sue you for spoliation of evidence. Not all locales have this tort though.
Here [google.co.uk] are a lot of lawyers who disagree with you.
Maybe in the UK; most non-compete clauses I've seen are analyzed under contract law here. That's because covenants aren't usually distinct from the contract that contains them; you can't separate them like that.
Like a non-compete covenant might be valid on its face in isolation, but if there wasn't adequate consideration under the contract or the contract was void for any other reason, the covenant is destroyed.
Well, the fact of the matter is you'll never know what is enforceable or not until you pay some lawyer $10,000.00 for the privilege of arguing it in front of a judge, and even then, you never know what will happen on any given day in court. The judge could enforce the agreement (you did, after all, sign it), he could modify it so it conforms with state law (well, you intended to agree to this, but it doesn't quite conform to state law, so here I'll modify it for you so it conforms... you're still on the hook for some, but not all, of what you agreed to), or he could toss it outright.
The second to last thing is definitely a possibility in my state; judges are empowered to modify non-compete clauses in contracts to conform with the relevant statute.
I could give you caselaw citations, but without access to westlaw or lexis it would probably be worthless to you. Let me cut and paste from cases I found in 30 seconds of searching:
While the plaintiffs did continue their pre-DRP conduct by remaining in Gulfstream's employ, they did so in the face of changed circumstances. By specifying the manner of acceptance as continued employment and announcing that the DRP was a condition of employment, the DRP and accompanying letter plainly set forth two options for Gulfstream employees: (1) continue in employment, thereby accepting the DRP, or (2) terminate employment. Thus, given these two options, the employees' remaining in Gulfstream's employ after notice of the DRP was an unambiguous act of acceptance of the DRP.
From another one:
A contract for employment terminable at the will of either party may be supplanted by new terms of employment accepted by acquiescence. Linder v. Midland Oil Refining Co., 96 Colo. 160, 40 P.2d 253 (1935). When the defense to an action by an employee for wages is that, subsequent to the hiring, the parties made a new contract with different terms, the burden of proving the new agreement rests upon the employer. See Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Hollenbeck, 124 Colo. 130, 235 P.2d 792 (1951); Lyman v. Schwartz, 13 Colo.App. 318, 57 P. 735 (1899).
As suggested by Linder, supra, whether the employee protested contract changes is an important factor in determining whether the employee has acquiesced in a new contract by continuing to work.
Non-compete agreements are not contracts, but covenants, which are different.
I have never heard that theory before. I think you're a bit mistaken, covenants are generally part of property law, not contract law. Every non-compete agreement I've dealt with has been a contract.
The reason for this is that 1) without the signature it can't be proven you saw the document, 2) without you consenting to the document, it's not binding. It's the same reason you have to click yes before a software EULA is binding.
Actually, you don't need a signature to have a valid contract in the US. Hell, you don't even need writing.
In fact, it's entirely possible that a court would accept someone's continuing to work as "acceptance" of a contract.
In Florida at least, non-competes are completely NON-ENFORCEABLE. Oh, don't get me wrong, if you sign one, you will get sued, but you will win. Heck, even if you don't sign one, you may get sued if you move jobs to a competitor of your employer, but you will win. It's just a scare tactic to keep ignorant people from even trying.
Umm, hope you're not acting on that misapprehension. In Florida non-competes are discouraged but statutorily allowed and perfectly enforceable.
90% of the time they signed it anyway without looking. Especially if it's not on the first page.
That probably didn't do anything you know, and you were still bound by those things you struck out (there's a reason why handwritten modifications to contracts are generally initialled by both parties).
The RCMP announced that it will stop targeting people who download copyrighted material for personal use (Google translation). Their priority will be to focus on organized crime and copyright theft that affects the health and safety of consumers, such as copyright violations related to medicine and electrical appliances, instead of the cash flow of large corporations
Or mustachioed villains who tie young women to railroad tracks.
The summary does a poor job of explaining what on earth this article is about if you are not American.
I am an American and I have no freaking clue what they're talking about. GOOG-411? I'm assuming that's some sort of information number that google does, but like the vast majority of Americans I'm sure, I've never used it.
"We're not going to have a flying car, as people think of it, for a while," said Anna Dietrich, chief operating officer of the Woburn, Mass.-based company. "I would never say it's not going to happen, but today the infrastructure is not there, nor is the training, nor are the avionics that would make the training unnecessary... What makes sense right now is a roadable aircraft."
Ok, sure. THAT'S why we don't have a flying car--we don't have the infrastructure, training, or avionics. Give me a break.
What about a viable PROPULSION SYSTEM. I mean give me a break, you really think what's holding back flying cars is "training" and "infrastructure"? That's like saying what's holding back faster-than-light travel is our schools just aren't graduating enough hyperspace drive engineers.
It happens, but I think it's pretty rare (IANAL either). And usually for something pretty major, like to try to remove someone from office [nctimes.com].
Actually it's not as rare as you would think. First of all the state is oftentimes a party to a contract, and if the other party breaches they can bring them to court the same way a private citizen can. Then you have civil forfeiture proceedings, lawsuits seeking injunctions against people who threaten to reveal intelligence info, the Federal Election Commission can sue people who it thinks are violating election laws, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, the $5 movies at wal-mart seem to fly off the shelves, while most of their old music doesn't budge.
I believe, but am not certain, that most of those $5 movies are loss leaders.
if Wii owners don't keep buying games
It would be very possible. I got a wii about 2 months ago and I've bought a single wii game since then. I want to buy more, I eagerly scan the videogame store shelf every week, but the games tend to be underwhelming at best.
Pensions make up massive amounts of the stock market through sheer weight of numbers, it's hardly a bad call making sure they're getting everything they should for their members retirement funds, is it?
Furthermore the pension fund managers have a very strict legal duty to safeguard the members' money. It's their job to launch these kinds of lawsuits.
Seriously. Stop posting stories from New Scientist. Or articles in other publications on New Scientist articles.
Can we still post stories from newspapers that are about articles in other publications about New Scientist articles?
I was going to make an Alpha Centauri joke but it's been a long, sleep-deprived week so I'm drawing a blank. Anyone want to make up one for me?
There was an old Ghostbusters game--I remember playing it on a PCjr, I think in the late 80s. You needed one of the joystick accessories.
Yep, I had that for the PCjr. Great game. And the PCjr was a great little computer that never got the respect it was due.
He falls for it every time and she never fails to pull it away at the last second (I keep hoping there's one strip where she doesn't pull it away, but I never saw it.... anyone?).
I seem to remember a strip where she finally decided to be nice and not pull it away, but he still missed the ball and kicked her hand instead.
To those of us who actually have to live in the same city as these trust fund ivy league rejects, it's just an excuse for rich kids to drink and throw up all over union square.
Ahh, NYU, desperately trying to buy its way to prominence. Where suburban kids get to live the bohemian life for 4 years in their $2000 a month dorm rooms (well at least the good aspects of the bohemian lifestyle, not actually any of the yucky poverty aspects) before ultimately moving back to the suburbs to raise another generation of mindlessly boring, cookie-cutter pseudointellectual poseurs.
Maybe comcast will start delivering what people paid for.
Stupid comcast, slowing down my lotus notes packets...
Half of the operating costs of a nuclear power plant used to be fighting lawsuits trying to shut it down, and protestors keeping their employees out.
The costs of operating a nuclear power plant are dwarfed by the costs of building one. And those costs aren't driven by lawsuits. The main reason there haven't been new plants built in a long while is because they're hideously expensive.
We still have the problem of nuclear waste disposal, but it would eliminate a great deal of carbon emissions.
And it's a huge problem. This is why I find it frustrating to debate nuclear power on slashdot. You can't gloss over the disposal issue like that.
They insist we fix their problem in 48 hours when they can't even describe the problem accurately enough to reproduce. They need us and beg us for help and resent every second of it.
Since it's your incompetence which created the problem, maybe it really is up to you to figure it out and fix it? If you write buggy code, expect your customers to complain. You should feel some sort of embarassment here for having them point out your mistakes.
Perhaps because the barrier to entry for online gaming is lower than having an actual product to sell and the means to efficiently distribute it?
Also the transfer of physical property leaves a much bigger trail for auditors to follow. Knowing whether you got dealt a flush or a pair is a bit harder to deduce.
All this over a CIA "operative" whose was not a covert agent. Per federal regulations, she was no longer considered covert because she had not received a covert assignment in over five years.
She was a covert agent at the time of Novak's column. Anyone who says otherwise is just making stuff up.
Then the judge rules something that I can't remember, but basically you, the email deleter, gets into trouble and possibly loses the case.
Three things that could happen:
1. The judge can find that your deletion creates a presumption that the e-mails were damaging.
2. The judge can enter sanctions against you for discovery abuses.
3. Depending on the laws the court is operating under, the other side might be able to sue you for spoliation of evidence. Not all locales have this tort though.
Here [google.co.uk] are a lot of lawyers who disagree with you.
Maybe in the UK; most non-compete clauses I've seen are analyzed under contract law here. That's because covenants aren't usually distinct from the contract that contains them; you can't separate them like that.
Like a non-compete covenant might be valid on its face in isolation, but if there wasn't adequate consideration under the contract or the contract was void for any other reason, the covenant is destroyed.
Well, the fact of the matter is you'll never know what is enforceable or not until you pay some lawyer $10,000.00 for the privilege of arguing it in front of a judge, and even then, you never know what will happen on any given day in court. The judge could enforce the agreement (you did, after all, sign it), he could modify it so it conforms with state law (well, you intended to agree to this, but it doesn't quite conform to state law, so here I'll modify it for you so it conforms... you're still on the hook for some, but not all, of what you agreed to), or he could toss it outright.
The second to last thing is definitely a possibility in my state; judges are empowered to modify non-compete clauses in contracts to conform with the relevant statute.
I could give you caselaw citations, but without access to westlaw or lexis it would probably be worthless to you. Let me cut and paste from cases I found in 30 seconds of searching:
While the plaintiffs did continue their pre-DRP conduct by remaining in Gulfstream's employ, they did so in the face of changed circumstances. By specifying the manner of acceptance as continued employment and announcing that the DRP was a condition of employment, the DRP and accompanying letter plainly set forth two options for Gulfstream employees: (1) continue in employment, thereby accepting the DRP, or (2) terminate employment. Thus, given these two options, the employees' remaining in Gulfstream's employ after notice of the DRP was an unambiguous act of acceptance of the DRP.
From another one:
A contract for employment terminable at the will of either party may be supplanted by new terms of employment accepted by acquiescence. Linder v. Midland Oil Refining Co., 96 Colo. 160, 40 P.2d 253 (1935). When the defense to an action by an employee for wages is that, subsequent to the hiring, the parties made a new contract with different terms, the burden of proving the new agreement rests upon the employer. See Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Hollenbeck, 124 Colo. 130, 235 P.2d 792 (1951); Lyman v. Schwartz, 13 Colo.App. 318, 57 P. 735 (1899). As suggested by Linder, supra, whether the employee protested contract changes is an important factor in determining whether the employee has acquiesced in a new contract by continuing to work.
Non-compete agreements are not contracts, but covenants, which are different.
I have never heard that theory before. I think you're a bit mistaken, covenants are generally part of property law, not contract law. Every non-compete agreement I've dealt with has been a contract.
The reason for this is that 1) without the signature it can't be proven you saw the document, 2) without you consenting to the document, it's not binding. It's the same reason you have to click yes before a software EULA is binding.
Actually, you don't need a signature to have a valid contract in the US. Hell, you don't even need writing.
In fact, it's entirely possible that a court would accept someone's continuing to work as "acceptance" of a contract.
In Florida at least, non-competes are completely NON-ENFORCEABLE. Oh, don't get me wrong, if you sign one, you will get sued, but you will win. Heck, even if you don't sign one, you may get sued if you move jobs to a competitor of your employer, but you will win. It's just a scare tactic to keep ignorant people from even trying.
Umm, hope you're not acting on that misapprehension. In Florida non-competes are discouraged but statutorily allowed and perfectly enforceable.
90% of the time they signed it anyway without looking. Especially if it's not on the first page.
That probably didn't do anything you know, and you were still bound by those things you struck out (there's a reason why handwritten modifications to contracts are generally initialled by both parties).
The RCMP announced that it will stop targeting people who download copyrighted material for personal use (Google translation). Their priority will be to focus on organized crime and copyright theft that affects the health and safety of consumers, such as copyright violations related to medicine and electrical appliances, instead of the cash flow of large corporations
Or mustachioed villains who tie young women to railroad tracks.
The summary does a poor job of explaining what on earth this article is about if you are not American.
I am an American and I have no freaking clue what they're talking about. GOOG-411? I'm assuming that's some sort of information number that google does, but like the vast majority of Americans I'm sure, I've never used it.
From the article:
"We're not going to have a flying car, as people think of it, for a while," said Anna Dietrich, chief operating officer of the Woburn, Mass.-based company. "I would never say it's not going to happen, but today the infrastructure is not there, nor is the training, nor are the avionics that would make the training unnecessary... What makes sense right now is a roadable aircraft."
Ok, sure. THAT'S why we don't have a flying car--we don't have the infrastructure, training, or avionics. Give me a break.
What about a viable PROPULSION SYSTEM. I mean give me a break, you really think what's holding back flying cars is "training" and "infrastructure"? That's like saying what's holding back faster-than-light travel is our schools just aren't graduating enough hyperspace drive engineers.
It happens, but I think it's pretty rare (IANAL either). And usually for something pretty major, like to try to remove someone from office [nctimes.com].
Actually it's not as rare as you would think. First of all the state is oftentimes a party to a contract, and if the other party breaches they can bring them to court the same way a private citizen can. Then you have civil forfeiture proceedings, lawsuits seeking injunctions against people who threaten to reveal intelligence info, the Federal Election Commission can sue people who it thinks are violating election laws, etc.