Did you get the same phone they are now selling as the 6030? I got in on this deal a couple of years ago and have had great luck with my phone. However, it is also apparent that they are selling a completely different phone using the same model number. Again, my light use may also be a factor.
Do a search for the Nokia 6030 at fatwallet. You should be able to get it free after rebate without any contract (with a $25 calling card tossed in as well). You can also get 1000 minute cards for around $90 at cheaperphonecards.com (depending on what specials they are running on a given day). The 1000 minutes last for a year. I use my phone only for emergencies or to let me wife know when I've been caught in traffic. I had to buy another 1000 minutes after just ten months but it is still a the best deal I have found for light use.
Exactly. It is pretty hard to come up with any laws common through much of the world that are not based in morality (laws against theft, assault, murder, etc.). Even statutory schemes that appear to be primarily economic are often based on morality. For example, worker's compensation laws are generally based on the idea that it is immoral for employers to profit from the blood of their employees (at least not without paying something in return).
Yes, that is correct. I took a look at the prior article and there was an update indicating that the lack of warranty options was due to an glitch in Dell's ordering system. They have fixed the glitch for home users (but are now openly screwing business customers).
However, do even the home customers get support for Ubuntu boxes? I seem to recall another article a week or so ago complaining that Dell was not providing support. Maybe that has changed.
Yes (assuming you are talking about the sale of goods in the US). My job is to review all purchases of consumables and equipment for a hospital system. Off the top of my head, I would say that well over 99% of the contract forms I am provided with by our vendors very clearly disclaim the warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose that are implied by the UCC (usually in larger bold all-caps type). In their place are express warranties that are clearly spelled out (e.g. free from defects in design, manufacture, and materials for a period of XYZ months after installation). This is a good option for national vendors to take as they don't want to risk having a rogue state court adopting some unusual interpretation of the UCC (although I think the risk is very small). As a purchaser, I don't mind this approach, although it does mean that I have to carefully review all of the customized express warranty language (but that's just job security).
Interestingly, one of our largest suppliers (J&J) uses exactly the opposite approach and disclaims all warranties except those that are implied under applicable state laws that pertain to the sale of goods. As far as I know, they are the only vendor we do business with that uses this approach. From my perspective (as a representative of the purchaser) it is a fine approach because the implied warranties work very well in the medical device context. However, I actually had to convince my client that J&J wasn't trying to screw us (because the business people are so used to seeing express warranties).
Generally, yes, it is. You just need to disclaim all warranties, whether they are express (not the case here) or implied (e.g. under applicable laws pertaining to the sale of goods, such as the UCC). Companies that try such tactics walk a fine line. On the one hand, you want the disclaimer to be relatively unnoticeable so you don't scare off customers. On the other hand, if it is too unnnoticeable, you run the risk of a court holding the disclaimer to be ineffective.
Note that various states (or countries) may have consumer legislation that limits a vendor's ability to waive all warranties for consumer goods. However, I believe such laws are the exception.
Before relying on this CA Code section (which, by the way, is pretty awesome for your purposes if it applies), you should check the contract for a governing law provision. Typically near the end of the contract with a bunch of other boilerplate provisions, the governing law provision might specify a state other than CA (especially if the employer is a larger national company with central headquarters located in a different state). If the contract specifies a different state, the employer may use an enforcement strategy that could possibly negate the benefits offered by this code section. Specifically, the employer could bring a claim in the courts of that other state, get a judgment, and then have the judgment enforced in CA (based on the full faith and credit provisions of the US Constitution). I don't believe this issue has been tested in court yet. If you become the test case, you've already lost (because the issue will cost huge dollars to litigate).
If there is no governing law provision in the contract, the foregoing problem still may potentially exist, although you would have a good argument that CA law should govern the contract since that is where you live, work, and where the company's local office is. Further, if the company is headquartered in CA, in the absence of a governing law provision, I don't see how they could argue that the laws of another state apply.
I am brand new to Linux (installed 6.10 a month ago) and just installed 7.04, primarily in the hopes of getting Beryl to work with my ATI x800 card. I succeeded and everything works well (I couldn't get it to work with Edgy). However, the process was only slightly more enjoyable than shoving hot lava rocks up my butt. From what I can tell, getting Beryl to work with later model ATI cards (read "cards less than 2 years old") involves reading through various help forum posts, printing out a half dozen or so configuration techniques, and trying them one by one (hoping that you don't bork your installation in the process). I don't think the upgrade to 7.04 in and of itself fixed the problem. However, there do appear to be many more posts that address the problem with 7.04 so there is a wider range of possible fixes to choose from. I'm don't really understand why this is such a problem. All I did was make some configuration changes (I already had the correct drivers). I would hope that this would be dealt with in the initial installation. Oh well, I guess I deserve it for using beta software.
Other than getting Beryl to work, I don't notice any significant difference from 6.10, although I am hardly a power user.
Even in the absence of a non-compete, there are potential causes of action. For example, many states have Trade Secrets Protection Acts which could apply. It's hard to say in this case because we don't know exactly what this person did or what sensitive information he might have. In Oregon, complaints based on violation of a non-compete almost always have trade secrets act violations tacked on. However, this is usually a scare tactic as it is recognized that this law (at least in Oregon) is not nearly as useful as a well crafted non-compete because there are many conditions that must be satisfied before the statute will apply to former employees. One of these conditions (in Oregon at least) is that the employer take reasonable precautions to protect the trade secrets. In many cases, employers that don't have non-competes have a difficult time satisfying this requirement. One could, of course, file a complaint based solely on a TSA violation (i.e. absent an NDA) but for the reason just mentioned, this doesn't happen often.
Additionally, some states has common law theories of an implied duty of loyalty that can create liability if the former employee were actively marketing for his new employer while still on his former employer's payroll. If the OP was honest in saying that he wanted to leave on good terms, it would lead me to believe this sort of thing was happening.
Of course, this is all speculation. If we could actually see the complaint, the issue would be out in the open.
Actually, you can _receive_ any amount as a gift and never have to report it to the IRS. Instead, the _donor_ must file the gift tax return and then only if the gift is over $12,000 (for this tax year - this figure will go up in future tax years). Even then, the donor may not incur any tax liability until the total gifts given by that donor exceed that donor's total lifetime exclusion amount (currently $1,000,000 if I recall correctly). This is a gross simplification of gift tax laws, don't rely on it for personal use, check with your CPA and attorney, etc. etc. etc. But you should get the general idea.
"non-profit" doesn't mean that don't have to make net income. All going concerns must make a profit. Even the most charitable of non-profits will require an annual net operating income of 3-4 percent at a minimum. Otherwise, small fluctuations in revenue result in layoffs (the employees are not themselves non-profit). The issue is whether that profit benefits owners (i.e. shareholders) or the public (by growing the concern and furthering its purpose).
As the numerous posts suggest, how to determine if something is obvious is difficult. As the transcript of the argument shows, you need a lot of experts to determine if something is obvious. And just who do you get to give expert testimony of an invention's obviousness?
See lines 17-21 on page 49 of this transcript of the argument. It seems like Chief Justice Roberts is a bit of a smart ass.
They do count them. Usually multiple times by different people. However, eventually someone will screw up (especially during a marathon operation lasting many hours).
One of the very first issues I had to deal with as a new attorney working in-house for a hospital were the hysterical parents of a patient who was going to have a "retained sponge" removed a few weeks after a C-section. Don't get me started on how screwed up that term is ("that crafty patient tried to steal a sponge by retaining it in her uterus while giving birth! The nerve of some people!"). If you've ever been through surgery before, you'll understand the importance of reducing even a very small chance of such screw ups. I would be totally pissed if I had to be cut open because someone screwed up an instrument count.
True, although the judges that really matter in this type of case (i.e. federal distict court, appeals cours, and US Supreme Court judges) are all appointed for life.
They didn't violate the first policy you cite (in your first paragraph) because of the way it is worded. They simply state the obvious (i.e. if the law requires them to disclose something, they will comply). It does nothing to restrict them from disclosing in other situations.
For your next citation, you would have to look at any applicable federal privacy laws to determine if the information they disclosed is protected. If not, I doubt they violated that portion of their policy either.
Although offtopic, if their payor mix is skewed toward Medicare and Medicaid patients (as opposed to private payors or other non-government payors), the more patients they have, the more straped for cash they would be.
Except, to the best of my knowledge, none of those media centoer boxes will stream VOB files. This means that if you want to watch DVD movies from a central server, you will have to convert them all to mpeg2 files.
cool. Enough time to allow me to rip all my CDs so I can listen to them in the fusion powered flying cars that will also come on the market ten years from now.
As far as I know, every state that has a sales tax (applied on sales within the state) also has a use tax of the same percentage that is applied to goods purchased outside the state but that are moved into and used within the state. The technicalities vary from state to state but it is more or less an attempt to collect tax from residents on purchases they make out of state. The one big difference is that use tax is generally based on the fair market value of the item when it is brought into the state. For the vast majority of purchases, this is the price you paid. However, there are some circumstances in which the value has significantly gone down (usually when businesses move across state lines and bring a lot of used equipment with them). I also don't know of any use tax that is applies to individuals moving from one state to another.
There are a ton of rules and its lottsa fun to deal with (which is why the vast majority of taxpayers simply pretend that use taxes don't exist).
Based on what little editorial comment is contained in the article, this is not the sort of decision that tends to get the 9th circuit in trouble (to the extent getting overturned equates getting in trouble). Instead, the 9th circuit tends to get in trouble when its judges follow what their conscience tells them rather than what binding precedent dictates. In this case, it appears that the court was following US Supreme Court precedent to the letter.
Non-competes are definitely enforceable in Oregon (having successfully enforced a few myself). There are some significant qualifications that might be unique to Oregon, the biggest of which is that the agreement must have been entered into simultaneous with initial employment or a bona fide promotion. Screwing this up by even a few days will render the non-compete unenforceable.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm still trying to wade through the toe-dipping and hedging in the parent post. Can someone please tell me how Utopianfiat really feels about Zonk?
Did you get the same phone they are now selling as the 6030? I got in on this deal a couple of years ago and have had great luck with my phone. However, it is also apparent that they are selling a completely different phone using the same model number. Again, my light use may also be a factor.
Do a search for the Nokia 6030 at fatwallet. You should be able to get it free after rebate without any contract (with a $25 calling card tossed in as well). You can also get 1000 minute cards for around $90 at cheaperphonecards.com (depending on what specials they are running on a given day). The 1000 minutes last for a year. I use my phone only for emergencies or to let me wife know when I've been caught in traffic. I had to buy another 1000 minutes after just ten months but it is still a the best deal I have found for light use.
Exactly. It is pretty hard to come up with any laws common through much of the world that are not based in morality (laws against theft, assault, murder, etc.). Even statutory schemes that appear to be primarily economic are often based on morality. For example, worker's compensation laws are generally based on the idea that it is immoral for employers to profit from the blood of their employees (at least not without paying something in return).
Yes, that is correct. I took a look at the prior article and there was an update indicating that the lack of warranty options was due to an glitch in Dell's ordering system. They have fixed the glitch for home users (but are now openly screwing business customers).
However, do even the home customers get support for Ubuntu boxes? I seem to recall another article a week or so ago complaining that Dell was not providing support. Maybe that has changed.
Yes (assuming you are talking about the sale of goods in the US). My job is to review all purchases of consumables and equipment for a hospital system. Off the top of my head, I would say that well over 99% of the contract forms I am provided with by our vendors very clearly disclaim the warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose that are implied by the UCC (usually in larger bold all-caps type). In their place are express warranties that are clearly spelled out (e.g. free from defects in design, manufacture, and materials for a period of XYZ months after installation). This is a good option for national vendors to take as they don't want to risk having a rogue state court adopting some unusual interpretation of the UCC (although I think the risk is very small). As a purchaser, I don't mind this approach, although it does mean that I have to carefully review all of the customized express warranty language (but that's just job security).
Interestingly, one of our largest suppliers (J&J) uses exactly the opposite approach and disclaims all warranties except those that are implied under applicable state laws that pertain to the sale of goods. As far as I know, they are the only vendor we do business with that uses this approach. From my perspective (as a representative of the purchaser) it is a fine approach because the implied warranties work very well in the medical device context. However, I actually had to convince my client that J&J wasn't trying to screw us (because the business people are so used to seeing express warranties).
Generally, yes, it is. You just need to disclaim all warranties, whether they are express (not the case here) or implied (e.g. under applicable laws pertaining to the sale of goods, such as the UCC). Companies that try such tactics walk a fine line. On the one hand, you want the disclaimer to be relatively unnoticeable so you don't scare off customers. On the other hand, if it is too unnnoticeable, you run the risk of a court holding the disclaimer to be ineffective.
Note that various states (or countries) may have consumer legislation that limits a vendor's ability to waive all warranties for consumer goods. However, I believe such laws are the exception.
Before relying on this CA Code section (which, by the way, is pretty awesome for your purposes if it applies), you should check the contract for a governing law provision. Typically near the end of the contract with a bunch of other boilerplate provisions, the governing law provision might specify a state other than CA (especially if the employer is a larger national company with central headquarters located in a different state). If the contract specifies a different state, the employer may use an enforcement strategy that could possibly negate the benefits offered by this code section. Specifically, the employer could bring a claim in the courts of that other state, get a judgment, and then have the judgment enforced in CA (based on the full faith and credit provisions of the US Constitution). I don't believe this issue has been tested in court yet. If you become the test case, you've already lost (because the issue will cost huge dollars to litigate).
If there is no governing law provision in the contract, the foregoing problem still may potentially exist, although you would have a good argument that CA law should govern the contract since that is where you live, work, and where the company's local office is. Further, if the company is headquartered in CA, in the absence of a governing law provision, I don't see how they could argue that the laws of another state apply.
I am brand new to Linux (installed 6.10 a month ago) and just installed 7.04, primarily in the hopes of getting Beryl to work with my ATI x800 card. I succeeded and everything works well (I couldn't get it to work with Edgy). However, the process was only slightly more enjoyable than shoving hot lava rocks up my butt. From what I can tell, getting Beryl to work with later model ATI cards (read "cards less than 2 years old") involves reading through various help forum posts, printing out a half dozen or so configuration techniques, and trying them one by one (hoping that you don't bork your installation in the process). I don't think the upgrade to 7.04 in and of itself fixed the problem. However, there do appear to be many more posts that address the problem with 7.04 so there is a wider range of possible fixes to choose from. I'm don't really understand why this is such a problem. All I did was make some configuration changes (I already had the correct drivers). I would hope that this would be dealt with in the initial installation. Oh well, I guess I deserve it for using beta software.
Other than getting Beryl to work, I don't notice any significant difference from 6.10, although I am hardly a power user.
Even in the absence of a non-compete, there are potential causes of action. For example, many states have Trade Secrets Protection Acts which could apply. It's hard to say in this case because we don't know exactly what this person did or what sensitive information he might have. In Oregon, complaints based on violation of a non-compete almost always have trade secrets act violations tacked on. However, this is usually a scare tactic as it is recognized that this law (at least in Oregon) is not nearly as useful as a well crafted non-compete because there are many conditions that must be satisfied before the statute will apply to former employees. One of these conditions (in Oregon at least) is that the employer take reasonable precautions to protect the trade secrets. In many cases, employers that don't have non-competes have a difficult time satisfying this requirement. One could, of course, file a complaint based solely on a TSA violation (i.e. absent an NDA) but for the reason just mentioned, this doesn't happen often.
Additionally, some states has common law theories of an implied duty of loyalty that can create liability if the former employee were actively marketing for his new employer while still on his former employer's payroll. If the OP was honest in saying that he wanted to leave on good terms, it would lead me to believe this sort of thing was happening.
Of course, this is all speculation. If we could actually see the complaint, the issue would be out in the open.
Actually, you can _receive_ any amount as a gift and never have to report it to the IRS. Instead, the _donor_ must file the gift tax return and then only if the gift is over $12,000 (for this tax year - this figure will go up in future tax years). Even then, the donor may not incur any tax liability until the total gifts given by that donor exceed that donor's total lifetime exclusion amount (currently $1,000,000 if I recall correctly). This is a gross simplification of gift tax laws, don't rely on it for personal use, check with your CPA and attorney, etc. etc. etc. But you should get the general idea.
"non-profit" doesn't mean that don't have to make net income. All going concerns must make a profit. Even the most charitable of non-profits will require an annual net operating income of 3-4 percent at a minimum. Otherwise, small fluctuations in revenue result in layoffs (the employees are not themselves non-profit). The issue is whether that profit benefits owners (i.e. shareholders) or the public (by growing the concern and furthering its purpose).
To paraphrase the ruling "Insofar as this proposed item exceeds anyone's tolerance for blatant dupes , it should be stricken."
As the numerous posts suggest, how to determine if something is obvious is difficult. As the transcript of the argument shows, you need a lot of experts to determine if something is obvious. And just who do you get to give expert testimony of an invention's obviousness?
See lines 17-21 on page 49 of this transcript of the argument. It seems like Chief Justice Roberts is a bit of a smart ass.
They do count them. Usually multiple times by different people. However, eventually someone will screw up (especially during a marathon operation lasting many hours).
One of the very first issues I had to deal with as a new attorney working in-house for a hospital were the hysterical parents of a patient who was going to have a "retained sponge" removed a few weeks after a C-section. Don't get me started on how screwed up that term is ("that crafty patient tried to steal a sponge by retaining it in her uterus while giving birth! The nerve of some people!"). If you've ever been through surgery before, you'll understand the importance of reducing even a very small chance of such screw ups. I would be totally pissed if I had to be cut open because someone screwed up an instrument count.
True, although the judges that really matter in this type of case (i.e. federal distict court, appeals cours, and US Supreme Court judges) are all appointed for life.
They didn't violate the first policy you cite (in your first paragraph) because of the way it is worded. They simply state the obvious (i.e. if the law requires them to disclose something, they will comply). It does nothing to restrict them from disclosing in other situations.
For your next citation, you would have to look at any applicable federal privacy laws to determine if the information they disclosed is protected. If not, I doubt they violated that portion of their policy either.
Although offtopic, if their payor mix is skewed toward Medicare and Medicaid patients (as opposed to private payors or other non-government payors), the more patients they have, the more straped for cash they would be.
Except, to the best of my knowledge, none of those media centoer boxes will stream VOB files. This means that if you want to watch DVD movies from a central server, you will have to convert them all to mpeg2 files.
cool. Enough time to allow me to rip all my CDs so I can listen to them in the fusion powered flying cars that will also come on the market ten years from now.
It's not a federal tax.
As far as I know, every state that has a sales tax (applied on sales within the state) also has a use tax of the same percentage that is applied to goods purchased outside the state but that are moved into and used within the state. The technicalities vary from state to state but it is more or less an attempt to collect tax from residents on purchases they make out of state. The one big difference is that use tax is generally based on the fair market value of the item when it is brought into the state. For the vast majority of purchases, this is the price you paid. However, there are some circumstances in which the value has significantly gone down (usually when businesses move across state lines and bring a lot of used equipment with them). I also don't know of any use tax that is applies to individuals moving from one state to another.
There are a ton of rules and its lottsa fun to deal with (which is why the vast majority of taxpayers simply pretend that use taxes don't exist).
Most likely the case discussed in this article:
Poletown Reversed
Disclaimer: the article doesn't really make the slightest pretense of being unbiased but it does highlight the issue well.
Here's pretty good article that discusses the rate at which 9th Circuit decisions are overturned.
9th Circuit article
Based on what little editorial comment is contained in the article, this is not the sort of decision that tends to get the 9th circuit in trouble (to the extent getting overturned equates getting in trouble). Instead, the 9th circuit tends to get in trouble when its judges follow what their conscience tells them rather than what binding precedent dictates. In this case, it appears that the court was following US Supreme Court precedent to the letter.
Non-competes are definitely enforceable in Oregon (having successfully enforced a few myself). There are some significant qualifications that might be unique to Oregon, the biggest of which is that the agreement must have been entered into simultaneous with initial employment or a bona fide promotion. Screwing this up by even a few days will render the non-compete unenforceable.