Since CIPA doesn't specify any particular filtering software, come up with something that works. Most libraries use bar-coded library cards anyway. Add a bar code scanner to each PC open to the public, and allow anyone, by showing an ID, get their library card added to the unrestricted access database. Then add any filtering software you want. Any parent who cares whether or not their child can get access to stuff that shouldn't be filtered anyway can go to the library with their own card - they should be there with their kid anyway. Minimal policing necessary on the part of library staff, fully complies with CIPA, and requires no interaction with library staff once the card is added to the database.
Hydrogen has about 1/6th the amount of energy stored per gallon as gasoline. That means 1/6th the mileage, and 6 times the fuel to get the same range.
Ethanol has about 2/3 the amount of energy, methanol about 1/2. Neither of them has proved all that practical either, though there's tricks that can be played that improve this.
Privacy would be a very good reason. Tools which obfuscate song titles prevent evil market research companies (or the RIAA) from using automated tools to compile lists of what non-copyrighted music we own.
So you'd rather the record companies just throw darts at a list of names to choose who to let record their next album, as opposed to spending their money backing groups that are actually populat?
I don't think I'll ever understand the idea that marketing is evil. Bad marketing is annoying, and as well all things, most marketing is bad. But I really can't get enough emotional involvment into marketing to find it evil.
Non-competes are not, by and large, enforceable. There is a fair amount of case law on the subject. NDAs concerning trade secrets can be legal, if they're done just right.
Which won't keep it from interfering from you getting another job, because the only way to prove it's not enforceable is in court.
If the class had several weeks to investigate people's attitudes and personal histories in more depth, it could be a terrific Social Studies project. But just this one study popping up on science fair day and then disappearing, that is not the give and take of an ongoing scientific community.
Since this is equally true of everything done for a Science Fair, why bother to have one at all?
...months ago. The next step is to search through every source to find some incident - any incident, anywhere, any time - in which someone was injured or killed in a way that can be blamed on open source software. Then start agitating for laws making programmers utterly responsible for anything they touch, disclaimers notwithstanding, and require that open source software creators still have to carry massive liability insurance. I'm guessing we'll see the first lawsuits within months of the release of the next version of Windows (which wont' sell very well either).
Finding a partner is not a positive-sum game for instance,
If it's not a positive-sum game, you're not looking for a partner, you're looking for a servant.
Covad's not entierly blameless
on
DSL Woes
·
· Score: 1
Yesterday, I faxed off the contract to switch to a Rhythm's Network account because Covad has managed 4 outages in the last week and a half, two of them over 10 hours.
Study your employement law. It is not legally identical to depriving someone of, say, a car. But it is governed by the same legal principles. What Georgia law says is completely, utterly irrelevant when it conflicts with what federal law says, because federal law says it preempts state law on things federal law covers. And federal law says you cannot be fired without a reason, and that what an employee does on their own time is none of the employer's business.
This is true in principal, but since an employer does not need a reason to fire you, they can therefore fire you. For example, a school teacher has a porn website and gets fired. Why? Because its "indecent". Can she sue? Hell yes, however she'll lose because they don't NEED a reason to fire you.
There are states with state employement law that say this. They are "at will" states. These laws are in conflict with federal employement law, and federal case law. In other words, these "at will" laws are not entirely enforceable. In other words, you are incorrect. They do need a reason to fire you. Firing you is depriving you of your property - your job. This cannot be done arbitrarily and without reason.
Case in point: A few years ago, a large discount department store chain (who shall remain nameless in a public forum) was investigating an internal theft ring. They hired a private investigations firm to follow suspected members. PI reported that a particular woman, a manager, was involved in an extramarital affair, but not in the internal theft ring. Chain fired her, because they have a reputation of believing in "family values." She sued for wrongful termination. By the time the chain's lawyers explained the law to them, they settled out of court for at least six, and probably seven figures to avoid putting it in front of a jury, who would have awarded more.
What an employee does on their own time, that does not affect their work, is none of their empoloyer's damn business. That's the law of the land, everywhere in the US.
As for "Anyone who does is asking to be sued", yes. You can be sued for picking your nose, and given a certain judge/jury could be found guilty and owe penalties. This guy said bad stuff in public. Some ex-employer can do the EXACT same thing to him by telling his current employer.
He didn't say things with the intention of hurting them. His action didn't hurt them. His place of employement isn't a public place. Telling his employer anything with the intention of interfering with his job is defamation, even if it true.
Defamation is not like libel and slander. The 1st Amendment compels the law to recognize the truth as an absolute defense against libel and slander; it something is true, it cannot be libel or slander. This is not true of defamation. Defamation derives (thought not directly) from the right to privacy implied in the Constitution, and the right to privacy trumps the right to free speech in US case law. That means that if you say something damaging to someone's reputation, you have invaded their privacy. The only defenses against defamation are:
That your statements didn't damage the other person.
They are a public figure, such as an elected official, and thus have a very limited right to privacy.
They have chosen to "thrust themselves into the public view" and made themselves newsworthy, by, for example, robbing a bank.
None of these conditions exist here. If you tell a friend that a mutual friend owes you $20 and won't pay, that is newsworthy within the context of the conversation, because your circle of friends have an interest in each other's behavior. Telling the newspaper (assuming they'd print it) is not newsworthy, because strangers have no interest.
Since the statements in question were made on the ex-employee's own time, and did not in any way relate to his current job, it is, by law, none of his current employer's business. The are prohibited, by law, from caring what he does on his own time. Therefore, telling them something with the intention of damaging his employment comes up as defamation in my book. Not only would they be asking to be sued, they would likely lose.
(My opinion is that they're bluffing, or the person who started this isn't getting a complete and accurate picture.)
But, the bottom line is, you're simply wong. California is an "at will" state, and we still have to obey federal labor law, and federal labor law says you do need a reason to fire someone.
Note that IANAL. These are professional opinions from working in a supervisory position - a manager who did hiring and firing. But you need legal advice, consult a qualified employement attorny in your own state.
If they're publicizing his actions, then there's nothing wrong with it.
This is true, to an extent. So long as they tell the truth.
If his current employer feels that he needs to be held accountable for his actions, then they can fire him.
Only for actions that affect his job. Nothing else. What an employee does on his own time, that does not affect his current job is none of his employer's business.
There's just no argument there.
Untrue.
If you trash your employer, especially in public, they can fire you.
If you trash your current employer, they can fire you because it affects your current job. What you say about your former employer, on your own time, is none of their business.
They can ALSO tell your current employer.
Probably not, unless it affects his job now, and even then it's questionable unless it's reporting an illegal act. At best, it could be considered harassment. If it is done with the intent of having a negative effect on his employment, it moves towards defamation, and the fact that it's true is not a defense against defamation.
There's no laws against holding someone accountable for what they have done in the past.
There are laws against harassing people who have done nothing illegal, and there are laws against interfering with someone's employement. A job is a posession in the eyes of the law, just like a car or a computer. To say that someone can interfere with your job for no good reason is legally the equivalent of saying they can interfere with your computer for no good reason. The law says that's not allowed.
I am not a lawyer, but I have worked in management positions, with direct supervisory responsibilities, most of my adult life. What you are saying is simply wrong, at the federal level, and in nearly every state. It is not legal to talk trash about someone to their employer becase they legally excercised their right of free speech. Anyone who does that is asking to be sued.
This is not true. A job, legally, is your property. It's also the company's property, in some ways, but you are entitles to due process before it can be taken away from you. Even in "at will" states, such as California.
And I would be very careful about contacting someone's employer with the intent of damaging their job. The truth is an absolute defense against slander, but it is not against defamation. And employees have special protections against being harassed at work, especially where constitutional guarantees are concerned. Consult a qualified employement attorney before assuming you have no rights.
If they contact you directly at all, and threaten any action that is detrimental to you at all, contact an attorney, and sue them. If they contact your current employee at all, do the same.
Most roleplaying games can be zero sum. They often aren't played that way, but there's nothing inherent to an rpg that makes it zero sum. The gamemaster isn't necessarily the enemy, but rather all enemies and all friends in the game world.
I suspect that having an outstanding lawsuit against eToys might give etoy.com a claim on assests during the bankruptcy proceedings. Maybe they'll get the customer database.
Seems unlikely. Geeks are smarter than jocks. If anybody can figure out how to abuse the system for their own enjoyment, it will be those geeks, making anonymous tips about jocks doing drugs, and teachers who believe in this shit being pedophiles.
If I deleted the complete details of credit card transactions after 30 days, and my merchant service found out about it, I'd lose my merchant account. It's a violation of the contract I signed with them, which requires me to keep those records for several years.
And only an idiot would keep them in any form other than a database these days, readily accessible.
Plus, parts of those records are also tax records, and failing to keep them for the several years the IRS requires is a good way to end up paying a lot of extra taxes, fines, and penalties. Possibly even to go prison.
If your company is bought by another company, then destroying the information is the only way to make sure it is not transferred.
The flip side of this is that it denies the ability to sell a company under some circumstances, which would violate all manner of legal and constitutional rights. Buying a company in order to run it as it is should not bring about destroying its assets, especially customer lists.
Besides, these are also business records that can't legally be destroyed for a certain period of time if the company will continue to exist.
Slashdot Mirror
Since CIPA doesn't specify any particular filtering software, come up with something that works. Most libraries use bar-coded library cards anyway. Add a bar code scanner to each PC open to the public, and allow anyone, by showing an ID, get their library card added to the unrestricted access database. Then add any filtering software you want. Any parent who cares whether or not their child can get access to stuff that shouldn't be filtered anyway can go to the library with their own card - they should be there with their kid anyway. Minimal policing necessary on the part of library staff, fully complies with CIPA, and requires no interaction with library staff once the card is added to the database.
Ethanol has about 2/3 the amount of energy, methanol about 1/2. Neither of them has proved all that practical either, though there's tricks that can be played that improve this.
Of course, they don't filer their own spam, but still...
So you'd rather the record companies just throw darts at a list of names to choose who to let record their next album, as opposed to spending their money backing groups that are actually populat?
I don't think I'll ever understand the idea that marketing is evil. Bad marketing is annoying, and as well all things, most marketing is bad. But I really can't get enough emotional involvment into marketing to find it evil.
Which won't keep it from interfering from you getting another job, because the only way to prove it's not enforceable is in court.
Try this link for a decent overview.
If the class had several weeks to investigate people's attitudes and personal histories in more depth, it could be a terrific Social Studies project. But just this one study popping up on science fair day and then disappearing, that is not the give and take of an ongoing scientific community. Since this is equally true of everything done for a Science Fair, why bother to have one at all?
Fox airing such a piece of drive, or
Real scientists bothering to refute it. They make it more credible that way.
...months ago. The next step is to search through every source to find some incident - any incident, anywhere, any time - in which someone was injured or killed in a way that can be blamed on open source software. Then start agitating for laws making programmers utterly responsible for anything they touch, disclaimers notwithstanding, and require that open source software creators still have to carry massive liability insurance. I'm guessing we'll see the first lawsuits within months of the release of the next version of Windows (which wont' sell very well either).
That's not a partner. That's a servant. Partners don't try to own each other.
If it's not a positive-sum game, you're not looking for a partner, you're looking for a servant.
Yesterday, I faxed off the contract to switch to a Rhythm's Network account because Covad has managed 4 outages in the last week and a half, two of them over 10 hours.
Study your employement law. It is not legally identical to depriving someone of, say, a car. But it is governed by the same legal principles. What Georgia law says is completely, utterly irrelevant when it conflicts with what federal law says, because federal law says it preempts state law on things federal law covers. And federal law says you cannot be fired without a reason, and that what an employee does on their own time is none of the employer's business.
There are states with state employement law that say this. They are "at will" states. These laws are in conflict with federal employement law, and federal case law. In other words, these "at will" laws are not entirely enforceable. In other words, you are incorrect. They do need a reason to fire you. Firing you is depriving you of your property - your job. This cannot be done arbitrarily and without reason.
Case in point: A few years ago, a large discount department store chain (who shall remain nameless in a public forum) was investigating an internal theft ring. They hired a private investigations firm to follow suspected members. PI reported that a particular woman, a manager, was involved in an extramarital affair, but not in the internal theft ring. Chain fired her, because they have a reputation of believing in "family values." She sued for wrongful termination. By the time the chain's lawyers explained the law to them, they settled out of court for at least six, and probably seven figures to avoid putting it in front of a jury, who would have awarded more.
What an employee does on their own time, that does not affect their work, is none of their empoloyer's damn business. That's the law of the land, everywhere in the US.
As for "Anyone who does is asking to be sued", yes. You can be sued for picking your nose, and given a certain judge/jury could be found guilty and owe penalties. This guy said bad stuff in public. Some ex-employer can do the EXACT same thing to him by telling his current employer.
He didn't say things with the intention of hurting them. His action didn't hurt them. His place of employement isn't a public place. Telling his employer anything with the intention of interfering with his job is defamation, even if it true.
Defamation is not like libel and slander. The 1st Amendment compels the law to recognize the truth as an absolute defense against libel and slander; it something is true, it cannot be libel or slander. This is not true of defamation. Defamation derives (thought not directly) from the right to privacy implied in the Constitution, and the right to privacy trumps the right to free speech in US case law. That means that if you say something damaging to someone's reputation, you have invaded their privacy. The only defenses against defamation are:
None of these conditions exist here. If you tell a friend that a mutual friend owes you $20 and won't pay, that is newsworthy within the context of the conversation, because your circle of friends have an interest in each other's behavior. Telling the newspaper (assuming they'd print it) is not newsworthy, because strangers have no interest.
Since the statements in question were made on the ex-employee's own time, and did not in any way relate to his current job, it is, by law, none of his current employer's business. The are prohibited, by law, from caring what he does on his own time. Therefore, telling them something with the intention of damaging his employment comes up as defamation in my book. Not only would they be asking to be sued, they would likely lose.
(My opinion is that they're bluffing, or the person who started this isn't getting a complete and accurate picture.)
But, the bottom line is, you're simply wong. California is an "at will" state, and we still have to obey federal labor law, and federal labor law says you do need a reason to fire someone.
Note that IANAL. These are professional opinions from working in a supervisory position - a manager who did hiring and firing. But you need legal advice, consult a qualified employement attorny in your own state.
This is true, to an extent. So long as they tell the truth.
If his current employer feels that he needs to be held accountable for his actions, then they can fire him.
Only for actions that affect his job. Nothing else. What an employee does on his own time, that does not affect his current job is none of his employer's business.
There's just no argument there.
Untrue.
If you trash your employer, especially in public, they can fire you.
If you trash your current employer, they can fire you because it affects your current job. What you say about your former employer, on your own time, is none of their business.
They can ALSO tell your current employer.
Probably not, unless it affects his job now, and even then it's questionable unless it's reporting an illegal act. At best, it could be considered harassment. If it is done with the intent of having a negative effect on his employment, it moves towards defamation, and the fact that it's true is not a defense against defamation.
There's no laws against holding someone accountable for what they have done in the past.
There are laws against harassing people who have done nothing illegal, and there are laws against interfering with someone's employement. A job is a posession in the eyes of the law, just like a car or a computer. To say that someone can interfere with your job for no good reason is legally the equivalent of saying they can interfere with your computer for no good reason. The law says that's not allowed.
I am not a lawyer, but I have worked in management positions, with direct supervisory responsibilities, most of my adult life. What you are saying is simply wrong, at the federal level, and in nearly every state. It is not legal to talk trash about someone to their employer becase they legally excercised their right of free speech. Anyone who does that is asking to be sued.
This is not true. A job, legally, is your property. It's also the company's property, in some ways, but you are entitles to due process before it can be taken away from you. Even in "at will" states, such as California.
And I would be very careful about contacting someone's employer with the intent of damaging their job. The truth is an absolute defense against slander, but it is not against defamation. And employees have special protections against being harassed at work, especially where constitutional guarantees are concerned. Consult a qualified employement attorney before assuming you have no rights.
If they contact you directly at all, and threaten any action that is detrimental to you at all, contact an attorney, and sue them. If they contact your current employee at all, do the same.
Most roleplaying games can be zero sum. They often aren't played that way, but there's nothing inherent to an rpg that makes it zero sum. The gamemaster isn't necessarily the enemy, but rather all enemies and all friends in the game world.
I suspect that having an outstanding lawsuit against eToys might give etoy.com a claim on assests during the bankruptcy proceedings. Maybe they'll get the customer database.
Seems unlikely. Geeks are smarter than jocks. If anybody can figure out how to abuse the system for their own enjoyment, it will be those geeks, making anonymous tips about jocks doing drugs, and teachers who believe in this shit being pedophiles.
Telsa's patents were upheld (and Marconi lost) by the US Supreme Court in 1945. It's not really in question.
And only an idiot would keep them in any form other than a database these days, readily accessible.
Plus, parts of those records are also tax records, and failing to keep them for the several years the IRS requires is a good way to end up paying a lot of extra taxes, fines, and penalties. Possibly even to go prison.
The flip side of this is that it denies the ability to sell a company under some circumstances, which would violate all manner of legal and constitutional rights. Buying a company in order to run it as it is should not bring about destroying its assets, especially customer lists.
Besides, these are also business records that can't legally be destroyed for a certain period of time if the company will continue to exist.