Since she had stated out loud, regardless of what language she was speaking, her intent to Re-export the product, the sales clerk would have then be responsible as well as she for breaking the US Law. Apple would have also.
Educated yourself on the law before you claim this sales person was picking on her for being the "Evil Brown People Du Jour".
WRONG! They do have the authority over what you are allowed to purchase under the same policy. It's called RE-EXPORTING.
If the sales person is made aware of the plans for re-export then the sales person MUST refuse right of purchase. This is a well documented policy here in the US and it is listed on several government websites.
The Sales person knowing the language was a direct help to him in violating US Policies. Paraphrasing: "If you know an export to be re-exported to a Restricted country, you must not perform the export." Thus the right of sale was denied because he was made aware of the re-export.
The sales clerk was 100% correct in his actions. Apple has done well in training the sales person of the US laws. If the sales person had sold the iPAD knowing it was going to be re-exported to IRAN, the sales clerk would have likely been fired and/or prosecuted by the government, AND Apple could have it's ability of exporting goods to other countries revoked which would be a serious blow to it's business.
Verizon had a window of time for which to comply with a request. They turned over information early, but it was a request that the judge was aware was made, so I have to ask, why should he be mad or upset? In this case a corporation complied with a request and didn't cause a drawn out battle. The judge had ample opportunity to note his concerns up front and order Verizon to compile the info, but not to release it. He waited until just after Verizon complied.
I don't agree with Verizon's decision to hand private information over so quickly, but nor do I feel that those who are being prosecuted for illegal downloads should be protected or get a free pass.
There must be some reasonably strong evidence against the John Doe's for Verizon to comply so quickly, and if there are any legal ramification that Verizon may face, why should a business take a hit for alleged illegal activities? Answer, they shouldn't. If there is nothing that is deemed private on the internet, then why is access to it considered private also? Privacy laws need to be more clearly defined and unanimously throughout our country, so that we don't have so many legal arguments nullifying one judgment or another.
If these John Doe's really are performing illegal activities, then I agree they need to be prosecuted.
I only wish this much effort was placed on catching other types of thieves that use the internet as their tool of theft, such as stealing credit card info or identities or other stuff.
and all of those other things. People will go where they can't be traced as easily and download all that they can, then local establishments will take the hit, and then when all those options are gone, some unsuspecting family will be hit next because I didn't configure their wireless connection to be secured.
I don't agree with pirating, but I feel this is also just going to backfire.
Really? So the honest person who pays for his/her copy of the product will be forced to have this crap shoved down their throat. It's as stupid as gun laws. Those who abide by the law pay the price of the stupid ones enacted due to the not so honest folk.
The entitlement thought of many of the US's population prevents us from our own success. Being your own boss and then employing others to work for you takes discipline and hard work. A business owners who starts from virtually nothing but an idea and makes the dream a reality has a stronger grasp on the value of a company and the people who work within its doors. This isn't to say that people in the US have no drive, but when the world flip flops, many just throw up their hands and quit.
Just look at the number of people who just quit paying their loans because they were under water, so many that it's destroying our economy. A home is more than an investment, it is something that needs love and care and needs constant attention, and just quitting when times are tough is not the right way to do it. Too many feel entitled to walk away from a house and loan and don't expect to receive the ass end of the consequences. Building a business takes the same work and pride, and those that really understand struggle make some of best business owners.
I have Comcast and I've seen this happen. So I try to use their movies, since I'm paying subscription fees, and holy crap their selections suck, I mean really suck balls.
Now I'm seeing TV channels that are soooooo compressed that the basic cable I'm paying for is taking a massive hit in quality viewing. Pictures pixelate all the time, sound cuts out several times an hour. It's horrible. AUGH!
Science without religious, political, or judicial influence is simply pure science in my opinion. Once science is used in any of those three areas it is often used to bias towards an expected outcome.
I agree science is crucial in all areas and the methods of it's use are what concern me. Science is use to help prove or debunk evidence in court rooms every day. But while it is extremely helpful in a court case, I also believe that science has killed such things as common sense, which in some instances has been know to ruin a case. Some examples where I think science destroyed a case: OJ Simpson trial, Casey Anthony trial, all the cases trying to chip away at Roe Vs. Wade, just to name a few.
While I believe good science was used in OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony cases, I believe that too much emphasis was put on scientific evidence, thus causing doubt where there should not have been any doubt.
In the matter of case chipping away at Roe Vs. Wade, the problem is how science is destroying the underlining message of Roe Vs. Wade, the science about a fetus is outweighing the basic human rights of the mother.
Microsoft was on the scene and making big noise in the 90's while the the others, Google, Apple and Facebook are big this decade or so. So as they were budding companies, Microsoft force a lot of Microsoft line of thinking down the throats of Americans. I equate this to the when the white man had all the power. Now these three companies and more have grown up in size, similar to the minorities of other races, in this country, and they are demanding to change the rules. So people have had Microsoft around a long time and hold a lot of grudges, and honestly, Microsoft tends to take some extra blame where they shouldn't, similarly so to the actions of whites by all minorties.
Sure you may think my comments are a bit far fetched, but if you really think about it they aren't. I'm not trying to invoke a race discussion, but there are similar correlations metaphorically speaking.
This is not a bad thing. It allows for people to schedule their own time more appropriately. I actually agree with this bit of logic for a few reasons. Airline passengers are forced to schedule their flights to get to their destinations, and for some that requires multiple flights or resources, so if the flight is a layover, an airlines has some wiggle room. As a passenger having some wiggle room is good too. Depending on the airport, you may miss a layover flight due to the congestion at that airport. Rides from the airport can be scheduled more safely, where passengers aren't as rushed. This doesn't mean that flights still won't be late, crap happens, but it allows for confidence to return in the airlines, which I think that they sorely need these days.
For those who are particular about every wasted moment, well you'll never be happy with this situation.
These 4 are violated at each and every interview. You don't have to ask by gender, but unless an interviewer is blind and deaf, they can see your age, they can see your gender, they can assume your race and they can see your marital status.
Women dress in dresses, heals, and female tailored business suits. Men will have the same type of shoes and in many cases long sleeve shirts, suit coats, and ties. If you couldn't tell by their face or frame size you certainly can make the assessment by the way they were dressed.
Since most married individual wear a wedding ring, again a visual assessment will garner that info as well.
Age is a tad trickier, but you can usually ball-park an age range Race is a tad trickier in some cases as well. But for the most part you can generalize a race based on the limited categories provided.
Family Status is more difficult for men, but any woman who carries a purse will have tell-tale signs of being a mom. Ethnic background and religion, may also be garnered by the wardrobe of the job applicant.
In all of these cases, these are visual assessments.
If you have a phone interview in most cases you can tell the gender by voice (not all cases) A well trained HR rep may even be able to assess where a persons ethnic background is or religious background by discussing the company holidays. They will elude to the floating holiday for X Y and Z and many times people are responding to that info with a bit of personal background about how that time might be used.
So unless you look only at the qualifications documented on a standard resume that is formatted the same way for every job applicant and never see a name or an address or phone number, then you there is far less possibility of any discrimination at all for any reason other than for skills that meet the job criteria. Then that isn't discrimination it is simply most qualified candidate for the job based on skill info.
Article. XIV. [Proposed 1866; Allegedly ratified 1868. See Fourteenth Amendment Law Library for argument it was not ratified.]
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This is the verbiage of the 14th Amendment, which is speaking about Naturalized citizens.
You might have a better argument if you state your quotes factually.
.....to buy goods should not risk my privacy. I detest going into a Best Buy or Sears or any where else that has to ask for a phone number or zip code, and when I say no, I'm told, well it's the only way we can refund you if there is an issue with a product. And I immediately call Shenanigans, and they sheepishly admit that they don't need the info.
It's bad enough that my info is being sold to advertisers when I purchase on line due to some cookie on the browser page. My purchase no matter where I make it is and should be private, which includes any data I must provide in order to make a legitimate purchase. That is a purchase agreement for goods, not my info.
I'm so tired of every company having to have all of my info. I don't want targeted ads, in fact stop advertising to me.
Considering how much bullshit we go through, I would certainly see this as a Shovel Ready job. . . . . shoveling the shit being sold to America with our own tax paying dollars.
Churches, Court Rooms, Hospitals ( in certain parts.), Doctor's offices, Movie Theaters, Concerts, Funerals, Weddings, Restaurants, any packed mass transportation (if sparse populace, I think quiet conversations are OK), any Shopping Store, Classrooms, Conferences
Any meal with a family regardless of location, any family conversation.
I'm sure that there are lots of other places and times, feel free to add.
If you're in one of those places or time situations, graciously excuse yourself and step outside, or just don't take / make the call. It's simple courtesy to our fellow man. Same thing with music headsets, turn them down so they don't make that tiny music noise, show some respect to others, it sometimes only takes a small act of kindness for people to be forgiving and more flexible.
Slashdot Mirror
Since she had stated out loud, regardless of what language she was speaking, her intent to Re-export the product, the sales clerk would have then be responsible as well as she for breaking the US Law. Apple would have also.
Educated yourself on the law before you claim this sales person was picking on her for being the "Evil Brown People Du Jour".
The sales person was 100% correct in his actions.
WRONG! They do have the authority over what you are allowed to purchase under the same policy. It's called RE-EXPORTING.
If the sales person is made aware of the plans for re-export then the sales person MUST refuse right of purchase. This is a well documented policy here in the US and it is listed on several government websites.
The Sales person knowing the language was a direct help to him in violating US Policies. Paraphrasing: "If you know an export to be re-exported to a Restricted country, you must not perform the export." Thus the right of sale was denied because he was made aware of the re-export.
The sales clerk was 100% correct in his actions. Apple has done well in training the sales person of the US laws. If the sales person had sold the iPAD knowing it was going to be re-exported to IRAN, the sales clerk would have likely been fired and/or prosecuted by the government, AND Apple could have it's ability of exporting goods to other countries revoked which would be a serious blow to it's business.
OK, let me go do that. ;)
It's their Management. If they would fix that....
How much is that worth?
Verizon had a window of time for which to comply with a request. They turned over information early, but it was a request that the judge was aware was made, so I have to ask, why should he be mad or upset? In this case a corporation complied with a request and didn't cause a drawn out battle. The judge had ample opportunity to note his concerns up front and order Verizon to compile the info, but not to release it. He waited until just after Verizon complied.
I don't agree with Verizon's decision to hand private information over so quickly, but nor do I feel that those who are being prosecuted for illegal downloads should be protected or get a free pass.
There must be some reasonably strong evidence against the John Doe's for Verizon to comply so quickly, and if there are any legal ramification that Verizon may face, why should a business take a hit for alleged illegal activities? Answer, they shouldn't. If there is nothing that is deemed private on the internet, then why is access to it considered private also? Privacy laws need to be more clearly defined and unanimously throughout our country, so that we don't have so many legal arguments nullifying one judgment or another.
If these John Doe's really are performing illegal activities, then I agree they need to be prosecuted.
I only wish this much effort was placed on catching other types of thieves that use the internet as their tool of theft, such as stealing credit card info or identities or other stuff.
and all of those other things. People will go where they can't be traced as easily and download all that they can, then local establishments will take the hit, and then when all those options are gone, some unsuspecting family will be hit next because I didn't configure their wireless connection to be secured.
I don't agree with pirating, but I feel this is also just going to backfire.
Oh that was a great Work around question. LOL. Thanks for that.
Really? So the honest person who pays for his/her copy of the product will be forced to have this crap shoved down their throat. It's as stupid as gun laws. Those who abide by the law pay the price of the stupid ones enacted due to the not so honest folk.
Pathetic.
The entitlement thought of many of the US's population prevents us from our own success. Being your own boss and then employing others to work for you takes discipline and hard work. A business owners who starts from virtually nothing but an idea and makes the dream a reality has a stronger grasp on the value of a company and the people who work within its doors. This isn't to say that people in the US have no drive, but when the world flip flops, many just throw up their hands and quit.
Just look at the number of people who just quit paying their loans because they were under water, so many that it's destroying our economy. A home is more than an investment, it is something that needs love and care and needs constant attention, and just quitting when times are tough is not the right way to do it. Too many feel entitled to walk away from a house and loan and don't expect to receive the ass end of the consequences. Building a business takes the same work and pride, and those that really understand struggle make some of best business owners.
I have Comcast and I've seen this happen. So I try to use their movies, since I'm paying subscription fees, and holy crap their selections suck, I mean really suck balls.
Now I'm seeing TV channels that are soooooo compressed that the basic cable I'm paying for is taking a massive hit in quality viewing. Pictures pixelate all the time, sound cuts out several times an hour. It's horrible. AUGH!
Science without religious, political, or judicial influence is simply pure science in my opinion. Once science is used in any of those three areas it is often used to bias towards an expected outcome.
I agree science is crucial in all areas and the methods of it's use are what concern me. Science is use to help prove or debunk evidence in court rooms every day. But while it is extremely helpful in a court case, I also believe that science has killed such things as common sense, which in some instances has been know to ruin a case. Some examples where I think science destroyed a case: OJ Simpson trial, Casey Anthony trial, all the cases trying to chip away at Roe Vs. Wade, just to name a few.
While I believe good science was used in OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony cases, I believe that too much emphasis was put on scientific evidence, thus causing doubt where there should not have been any doubt.
In the matter of case chipping away at Roe Vs. Wade, the problem is how science is destroying the underlining message of Roe Vs. Wade, the science about a fetus is outweighing the basic human rights of the mother.
Just my initial thoughts.
Microsoft was on the scene and making big noise in the 90's while the the others, Google, Apple and Facebook are big this decade or so. So as they were budding companies, Microsoft force a lot of Microsoft line of thinking down the throats of Americans. I equate this to the when the white man had all the power. Now these three companies and more have grown up in size, similar to the minorities of other races, in this country, and they are demanding to change the rules. So people have had Microsoft around a long time and hold a lot of grudges, and honestly, Microsoft tends to take some extra blame where they shouldn't, similarly so to the actions of whites by all minorties.
Sure you may think my comments are a bit far fetched, but if you really think about it they aren't. I'm not trying to invoke a race discussion, but there are similar correlations metaphorically speaking.
Taulk amongst yer-selves
.... and be subject to a full cavity search. I can seen then how quickly they would reverse that decision.
It's indecent and disgusting. I understand their reasoning, but when it's and all or nothing decision, and not one of common sense, it's simply wrong.
This is not a bad thing. It allows for people to schedule their own time more appropriately. I actually agree with this bit of logic for a few reasons. Airline passengers are forced to schedule their flights to get to their destinations, and for some that requires multiple flights or resources, so if the flight is a layover, an airlines has some wiggle room. As a passenger having some wiggle room is good too. Depending on the airport, you may miss a layover flight due to the congestion at that airport. Rides from the airport can be scheduled more safely, where passengers aren't as rushed. This doesn't mean that flights still won't be late, crap happens, but it allows for confidence to return in the airlines, which I think that they sorely need these days.
For those who are particular about every wasted moment, well you'll never be happy with this situation.
But this is just my 2 cents worth.
These 4 are violated at each and every interview. You don't have to ask by gender, but unless an interviewer is blind and deaf, they can see your age, they can see your gender, they can assume your race and they can see your marital status.
Women dress in dresses, heals, and female tailored business suits.
Men will have the same type of shoes and in many cases long sleeve shirts, suit coats, and ties.
If you couldn't tell by their face or frame size you certainly can make the assessment by the way they were dressed.
Since most married individual wear a wedding ring, again a visual assessment will garner that info as well.
Age is a tad trickier, but you can usually ball-park an age range
Race is a tad trickier in some cases as well. But for the most part you can generalize a race based on the limited categories provided.
Family Status is more difficult for men, but any woman who carries a purse will have tell-tale signs of being a mom.
Ethnic background and religion, may also be garnered by the wardrobe of the job applicant.
In all of these cases, these are visual assessments.
If you have a phone interview in most cases you can tell the gender by voice (not all cases)
A well trained HR rep may even be able to assess where a persons ethnic background is or religious background by discussing the company holidays. They will elude to the floating holiday for X Y and Z and many times people are responding to that info with a bit of personal background about how that time might be used.
So unless you look only at the qualifications documented on a standard resume that is formatted the same way for every job applicant and never see a name or an address or phone number, then you there is far less possibility of any discrimination at all for any reason other than for skills that meet the job criteria. Then that isn't discrimination it is simply most qualified candidate for the job based on skill info.
.... well not quite, but it seemed like a funny reference.
Article. XIV.
[Proposed 1866; Allegedly ratified 1868. See Fourteenth Amendment Law Library for argument it was not ratified.]
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This is the verbiage of the 14th Amendment, which is speaking about Naturalized citizens.
You might have a better argument if you state your quotes factually.
Couldn't click the link at work.
I'm interested in knowing which realm it was for?
Was it a US or Oceanic server?
I'm just curious.
.....to buy goods should not risk my privacy. I detest going into a Best Buy or Sears or any where else that has to ask for a phone number or zip code, and when I say no, I'm told, well it's the only way we can refund you if there is an issue with a product. And I immediately call Shenanigans, and they sheepishly admit that they don't need the info.
It's bad enough that my info is being sold to advertisers when I purchase on line due to some cookie on the browser page. My purchase no matter where I make it is and should be private, which includes any data I must provide in order to make a legitimate purchase. That is a purchase agreement for goods, not my info.
I'm so tired of every company having to have all of my info. I don't want targeted ads, in fact stop advertising to me.
Privacy is priceless, and Cash is King.
Considering how much bullshit we go through, I would certainly see this as a Shovel Ready job. . . . . shoveling the shit being sold to America with our own tax paying dollars.
I'm paying for a service, I expect no less than my minimum promised broadband.
In no particular order:
Churches, Court Rooms, Hospitals ( in certain parts.), Doctor's offices, Movie Theaters, Concerts, Funerals, Weddings, Restaurants, any packed mass transportation (if sparse populace, I think quiet conversations are OK), any Shopping Store, Classrooms, Conferences
Any meal with a family regardless of location, any family conversation.
I'm sure that there are lots of other places and times, feel free to add.
If you're in one of those places or time situations, graciously excuse yourself and step outside, or just don't take / make the call. It's simple courtesy to our fellow man. Same thing with music headsets, turn them down so they don't make that tiny music noise, show some respect to others, it sometimes only takes a small act of kindness for people to be forgiving and more flexible.
I see what you did thar. Well Played Sir, Well Played.
Fuck No!