The issue isn't that the employer is required to inform the potential employee. The issue is that the employer is required to get permission from the potential employee. In writing.
that if you could get the internal memos on this, it would turn out that the idea is to be able to charge a per-viewer fee. In the same way that ASCAP is threatening lawsuits if you don't have a public performance license for the ringtone on your cell phone.
It is not literal, dictionary-definitional "slavery", you are correct. It is not du jure slavery.
That's just another way of saying "too stupid to get another job." There are other jobs, there are always other jobs. If you can't find them, that's your problem, not society's.
So your claim is that an employee who does not want to continue to work for a particular company is literally not allowed to quit? Because that's what a slave is. Someone who is literally kept captive under threat of violence, and whipped to work every day. And that, I'm pretty sure, is illegal. Something about a constitutional amendment.
If you don't like your job, get another one. There are decent jobs out there, even in IT. I know; I have one. I am salaried exempt, and I average 40 hours a week. Because I won't work for idiots. YMMV, of course, but I find that people rarely last long working for people stupider than themselves.
Sing it, brother. The last album I bought expecting more than maybe two decent tracks was Meat Loaf: Bat out of Hell, from which every single track was in the top 40 at one time or another. If the RIAA wants me to buy albums, they need to produce albums that aren't 90% festering crop that sucks donkey dick. I've spend more money on music since Amazon started selling DRM-free MP3s than, literally, my entire life before that (which would be 40+ years). And the day I can't buy DRM-free something will be the day I stop buying music again.
What you're missing is that you've been working for companies that have ripped you off and screwed you over, because you didn't know your rights or the law, and let them. If you were screwed out of enough money to be worth the legal fees, you could, indeed, sue for back wages (assuming you could document the unpaif overtime, which you probably can't) and would likely win.
Turns out that the federal standard on hourly rate is a lot lower than it is in California, though (about $27/hour vs, IIRC, $42), so you only need to be making about $50k. There are other requirements, though:
Some states (like California) have stricter standards.
The only other ways you can be salaried exempt are either as management, a corporate exec, or a licensed (or regulated) professional. Management requires (among other things) that you spend over half your time in direct supervisory duties, corporate execs must have very broad discretion in how they do their job, and regulated professionals are, well, regulated. If you don't need permission from the state (or the feds), you're not one.
If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
You work for thieving criminals. There are specific requirement for someone to be salaried exempt. Unless you're making $80k plus, and an IT professional, you cannot be salaried exempt. Unless you really are management, for which you must spent at least half of your time supervising subordinates, and must have "broad discretion" in how you do your job. Also, to be salaried exempt, there cannot be any specific expectation on what hours your work. Only details on what you must get done. The moment they care what hours you work, you are hourly.
The only way to enforce this, of course, is to take it to the labor board or your lawyer. Which is great for everyone else there, after the lawsuits are done, but you'll want to arrange another job before you start the suit for back wages.
Act like an adult. Both of you. All the time. Everything else is a variation of that. Don't be an asshole. Don't ignore your spouse. Don't put your wants ahead of their needs. Communicate. Don't spend money you both need for something that matters. Whatever.
You obviously haven't read too many legal documents. A judge in Texas once admonished both attorneys in a case to not run with scissors, and commented on expecting briefs to be filed in crayon.
New applications are being dreamed up by the team.
If you have to "dream up new applications" for your brilliant new idea, it's not much of an idea. In fact, if the application(s) aren't obvious, and in fact, the inpriation for the idea, it's a stupid idea.
I have actually had a memory module unseat itself. The clips were, perhaps, not the most effective design in the world to begin with, but that was exactly what happened.
(There is a special place in hell reserved for Packard Bell. Unfortunately, I'm certain it's a management position.)
If Windows isn't starting, it'll take me at least an hour (probably more) to figure out that it's screwed ram,
Really? I can generally figure that out from the beep codes on mother board power up. (And I've had it happen, so I'm not speculating.) This isn't a Windows thing, it's a hardware thing, and was an excellent choice of a test for a simple problem that is easy to identify and fix.
This isn't about getting us to drive less. It's about getting us to pay more. When insurance companies are involved, it's always about getting us to pay more. While promising we'll pay less.
And it's got nothing to do with behavioral inertia. Cloud computing adds an additional point of failure. Right now, with Office, if our T-1 goes down, OK, we can't check our email, but we can keep doing other things, like work on spreadsheets to send out by email when the T-1 is back up. With cloud computing, when the T-1 is down, everything is down.
Yeah, I know, Google Apps has options for working offline, but then, what's the point? How is it different, at that point, from Office?
No thanks. I know how reliable T-1s are. Yeah, pretty reliable, but without offline capabilities, we're out of business.
(Plus, I think whoever wrote this has little idea how many business use apps that Google will never have any interest in duplicating, like our cash register functions, and frankly, it would be illegal for us to let them handle some of that information anyway.)
It's more likely to get more Americans to vote. California handed Gray Davis his ass when he tripled our vehicle registration fees, for instance. Don't mess with the price of owning a vehicle.
The judge didn't rewrite the law. He followed it exactly as it is written, and from the scant facts presented in the article, he was actually fairly merciful in not just issuing a summary judgement. But he was entirely within the law as written.
This really has nothing to do with the claims presented by the RIAA. The defendant's misconduct so overshadowed the actual case as to make it irrelevant.
Actually, this has very little to do with copyrights either, and much to do with the defendant destroying and falsifying evidence and tampering with witnesses.
The safe harbor provision only applies to defendants who act in good faith. Tampering with witnesses and evidence is pretty good reason to think they have something to hide, and is, in fact, grounds for far harsher rulings than this. Like a summary ruling in the other side's favor, end of story. Or even criminal prosecution, if the behavior is egregious enough.
Actually, generally speaking, when a litigant is caught falsifying or destroying evidence, or otherwise interfering with the other side's case, it isn't uncommon for the judge to deny them to opportunity to present any defense. This is, in many people's opinion, entirely appropriate. It's the punishment for obstructing justice. This happened in one of the lawsuits over the University of California fertility clinic scandal, when the state's lawyers were caught falsifying evidence. The judge just issued a summary ruling for over $100 million, and that was that.
The key concept here is, if you don't want to lose automatically, don't break the rules (and the law).
When your research indicated that overweight people live longer, what it's really telling you is that your definition of "overweight" is broken. And BMI is, indeed, seriously broken, since it does not take in to account age, build, or even sex. BMI says that a man and a woman of the same height should be the same weight. Which is medically dangerous quackery.
The BMI formula was created by a mathematician, not a doctor or someone with medical training. It was pushed as a medical standard by phamracuetical companies that have invested heavily in weight loss drugs. When they found that the 1985 standards for obesity (~27.5) wasn't selling enough weight loss prescriptions, they pushed to lower the threshold to 25 instead.
The reason there are more overweight Americans in the last ten years is that the definition of overweight was changed in 1998. You'll never see a news article that says "Americans used to average ### pounds in weight, and now they average ###+n pounds, or even that the average BMI used to be ## and is now ##+n. All you'll ever see is "there are more overweight americans, with no explanation of how this is determined.
Because, dammit! those pharmaceutical execs have boat payments to make!
There is also a lucrative market for used video games to consider. After some gamers complete a title, they sell it back to the retailer. How will benefit denial handle that situation?"
If I understand their reasoning correctly, that's part of the piracy they're trying to stop.
That's the useful part about calling coypright infringement piracy instead of copyright infringement: It has no real meaning, so it means whatever they want it to mean.
Slashdot Mirror
The issue isn't that the employer is required to inform the potential employee. The issue is that the employer is required to get permission from the potential employee. In writing.
that if you could get the internal memos on this, it would turn out that the idea is to be able to charge a per-viewer fee. In the same way that ASCAP is threatening lawsuits if you don't have a public performance license for the ringtone on your cell phone.
It is not literal, dictionary-definitional "slavery", you are correct. It is not du jure slavery.
That's just another way of saying "too stupid to get another job." There are other jobs, there are always other jobs. If you can't find them, that's your problem, not society's.
So your claim is that an employee who does not want to continue to work for a particular company is literally not allowed to quit? Because that's what a slave is. Someone who is literally kept captive under threat of violence, and whipped to work every day. And that, I'm pretty sure, is illegal. Something about a constitutional amendment.
If you don't like your job, get another one. There are decent jobs out there, even in IT. I know; I have one. I am salaried exempt, and I average 40 hours a week. Because I won't work for idiots. YMMV, of course, but I find that people rarely last long working for people stupider than themselves.
The federal standard is about $24/hour, which is about $50k/year. Some states are higher (like California), but none are allowed to be lower.
Sing it, brother. The last album I bought expecting more than maybe two decent tracks was Meat Loaf: Bat out of Hell, from which every single track was in the top 40 at one time or another. If the RIAA wants me to buy albums, they need to produce albums that aren't 90% festering crop that sucks donkey dick. I've spend more money on music since Amazon started selling DRM-free MP3s than, literally, my entire life before that (which would be 40+ years). And the day I can't buy DRM-free something will be the day I stop buying music again.
What you're missing is that you've been working for companies that have ripped you off and screwed you over, because you didn't know your rights or the law, and let them. If you were screwed out of enough money to be worth the legal fees, you could, indeed, sue for back wages (assuming you could document the unpaif overtime, which you probably can't) and would likely win.
Turns out that the federal standard on hourly rate is a lot lower than it is in California, though (about $27/hour vs, IIRC, $42), so you only need to be making about $50k. There are other requirements, though:
http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/regs/compliance/fairpay/fs17e_computer.htm
Some states (like California) have stricter standards.
The only other ways you can be salaried exempt are either as management, a corporate exec, or a licensed (or regulated) professional. Management requires (among other things) that you spend over half your time in direct supervisory duties, corporate execs must have very broad discretion in how they do their job, and regulated professionals are, well, regulated. If you don't need permission from the state (or the feds), you're not one.
If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.
You work for thieving criminals. There are specific requirement for someone to be salaried exempt. Unless you're making $80k plus, and an IT professional, you cannot be salaried exempt. Unless you really are management, for which you must spent at least half of your time supervising subordinates, and must have "broad discretion" in how you do your job. Also, to be salaried exempt, there cannot be any specific expectation on what hours your work. Only details on what you must get done. The moment they care what hours you work, you are hourly.
The only way to enforce this, of course, is to take it to the labor board or your lawyer. Which is great for everyone else there, after the lawsuits are done, but you'll want to arrange another job before you start the suit for back wages.
Act like an adult. Both of you. All the time. Everything else is a variation of that. Don't be an asshole. Don't ignore your spouse. Don't put your wants ahead of their needs. Communicate. Don't spend money you both need for something that matters. Whatever.
Act like an adult. All the time. That's it.
The issue here is that the license does not allow this. Even the /. summary made that clear.
You obviously haven't read too many legal documents. A judge in Texas once admonished both attorneys in a case to not run with scissors, and commented on expecting briefs to be filed in crayon.
New applications are being dreamed up by the team.
If you have to "dream up new applications" for your brilliant new idea, it's not much of an idea. In fact, if the application(s) aren't obvious, and in fact, the inpriation for the idea, it's a stupid idea.
I have actually had a memory module unseat itself. The clips were, perhaps, not the most effective design in the world to begin with, but that was exactly what happened.
(There is a special place in hell reserved for Packard Bell. Unfortunately, I'm certain it's a management position.)
If Windows isn't starting, it'll take me at least an hour (probably more) to figure out that it's screwed ram,
Really? I can generally figure that out from the beep codes on mother board power up. (And I've had it happen, so I'm not speculating.) This isn't a Windows thing, it's a hardware thing, and was an excellent choice of a test for a simple problem that is easy to identify and fix.
This isn't about getting us to drive less. It's about getting us to pay more. When insurance companies are involved, it's always about getting us to pay more. While promising we'll pay less.
I'm an asshole. It says so on my character sheet.
And it's got nothing to do with behavioral inertia. Cloud computing adds an additional point of failure. Right now, with Office, if our T-1 goes down, OK, we can't check our email, but we can keep doing other things, like work on spreadsheets to send out by email when the T-1 is back up. With cloud computing, when the T-1 is down, everything is down.
Yeah, I know, Google Apps has options for working offline, but then, what's the point? How is it different, at that point, from Office?
No thanks. I know how reliable T-1s are. Yeah, pretty reliable, but without offline capabilities, we're out of business.
(Plus, I think whoever wrote this has little idea how many business use apps that Google will never have any interest in duplicating, like our cash register functions, and frankly, it would be illegal for us to let them handle some of that information anyway.)
It's more likely to get more Americans to vote. California handed Gray Davis his ass when he tripled our vehicle registration fees, for instance. Don't mess with the price of owning a vehicle.
The judge didn't rewrite the law. He followed it exactly as it is written, and from the scant facts presented in the article, he was actually fairly merciful in not just issuing a summary judgement. But he was entirely within the law as written.
This really has nothing to do with the claims presented by the RIAA. The defendant's misconduct so overshadowed the actual case as to make it irrelevant.
Actually, this has very little to do with copyrights either, and much to do with the defendant destroying and falsifying evidence and tampering with witnesses.
The safe harbor provision only applies to defendants who act in good faith. Tampering with witnesses and evidence is pretty good reason to think they have something to hide, and is, in fact, grounds for far harsher rulings than this. Like a summary ruling in the other side's favor, end of story. Or even criminal prosecution, if the behavior is egregious enough.
Actually, generally speaking, when a litigant is caught falsifying or destroying evidence, or otherwise interfering with the other side's case, it isn't uncommon for the judge to deny them to opportunity to present any defense. This is, in many people's opinion, entirely appropriate. It's the punishment for obstructing justice. This happened in one of the lawsuits over the University of California fertility clinic scandal, when the state's lawyers were caught falsifying evidence. The judge just issued a summary ruling for over $100 million, and that was that.
The key concept here is, if you don't want to lose automatically, don't break the rules (and the law).
Of course it's legal. It's called "collecting sales tax," and it's legal everywhere in the US for a retailer to do so.
And let's not call it anything else, because we do not want to confuse the issue.
When your research indicated that overweight people live longer, what it's really telling you is that your definition of "overweight" is broken. And BMI is, indeed, seriously broken, since it does not take in to account age, build, or even sex. BMI says that a man and a woman of the same height should be the same weight. Which is medically dangerous quackery.
The BMI formula was created by a mathematician, not a doctor or someone with medical training. It was pushed as a medical standard by phamracuetical companies that have invested heavily in weight loss drugs. When they found that the 1985 standards for obesity (~27.5) wasn't selling enough weight loss prescriptions, they pushed to lower the threshold to 25 instead.
The reason there are more overweight Americans in the last ten years is that the definition of overweight was changed in 1998. You'll never see a news article that says "Americans used to average ### pounds in weight, and now they average ###+n pounds, or even that the average BMI used to be ## and is now ##+n. All you'll ever see is "there are more overweight americans, with no explanation of how this is determined.
Because, dammit! those pharmaceutical execs have boat payments to make!
There is also a lucrative market for used video games to consider. After some gamers complete a title, they sell it back to the retailer. How will benefit denial handle that situation?"
If I understand their reasoning correctly, that's part of the piracy they're trying to stop.
That's the useful part about calling coypright infringement piracy instead of copyright infringement: It has no real meaning, so it means whatever they want it to mean.
Nothing you say in any way disputes the outstanding research on the subject, of course. It was just an excuse to call people names out of hysteria.
I expect more of the same. I suspect it's all you have.