Don't write them..... write to your congresspeople about abuses by media companies.
Get some proposed lawful action going that will have a serious negative affect on the companies' bottom line in $$$$.
It was meant to illustrate how we incorrectly assign the poor as being more criminal
No.... That's not right at all. I understand their rates of criminality are similar to the rest of the population for the poor.
The idea is to Get the drug abusers out of those programs.
It doesn't really matter if there are fewer abusers.... If someone can afford the drugs, and they still need to be on that program, then
they are misallocating their funds.
That's all well and good, but how are you going to do when you are served with a summons?
Since you are making addendums to their agreement: you will start by adding a Binding arbitration clause,
a choice of jurisdiction, and a "Losing party/Employer commits to pay attorneys fees + X%" rule, a waiver of
certain Employer rights, and an "All payments to the employee" are final term.
Then, yes, in the event of actions, you will send an appointed attorney to represent you.
I think requiring companies to pay a 50% salary when a non-compete is in effect is brilliant as they can dictate for whom you can work
I think it is brilliant, but I would suggest making it the greater of 75% of previous salary and 75% of previous salary Based on a 12-month average excluding the previous 30 days.
That can be reduced to zero by providing the employee a new agreement canceling any non-complete.
Otherwise: If you want to lay people off, just cut their salary first.
Or cut everyone's base salary immediately after the law passes, and start providing monthly bonuses which will vary from month to month based on managers' opinions on performance.
That is my thinking. If you informed them you don't agree to the proposed document, AND they still paid you, Then
the money you were paid must be pursuant to a different agreement.
How about attaching an Addendum to the agreement in the middle of the paperwork, and then making a small note
when you sign (YOUR NAME) agreed subject to attached addendum.
No, because it's a hazardous material that isn't properly contained and shouldn't be there, and workers need to get as much of the material away from people as safely as possible.
And Amazon's responsible for it, so they should bear the burden of that, whatever that is,
plus penalties to deter further misbehavior or negligence.
Smooth move.... throw the gallon of smuggled hazardous materials off the flight as unauthorized stowaway, and
contact the EPA to designate the place where they land as a superfund site, mobilize a few hundred billion $$$ worth of assets and thousands of full-time highly-paid government workers to commense the clean up, and make Amazon pay every dime of the total cleanup bill plus a 100% penalty.
If the ex-wife had filed a restraining order because of the domestic violence he would have been prohibited from owning a gun.
Only if there was enough evidence to convict.
Unless he were convicted of a crime, he could continue to own a gun; temporary orders do not last very long, and
you need to be found guilty on a felony count to permanently lose constitutional rights.
It is only an option for a judge to temporarily block his right to a firearm while the proceeding is scheduled or in progress.
Certainly by now an issue more than 6 years old would have been addressed.
Also, he could possibly have just disobeyed the order even if it were current. If he had already purchased guns, the guns do not disappear, just because a new order pops up.
Every new visitor who wants to enter will be taken into a small secure private room and be strip-searched by a robot.
Anything that could be used as weapon will have to be checked, once they are confirmed disarmed: a secondary exit will unlock, and the person will be allowed into the secure corridor.
No, because anyone planning to murder 50 people is just going to shoot the guard(s) at the metal detector and walk in anyway.
You can prevent by having a controlled entry right after the metal detector that can be locked down. Intake a certain number of people into a special "sally port" room where they pass through the metal detector, and the inside door doesn't unlock until the outside door right after the metal detector is shut and locked.
Have a remote guard watching cameras from a secure booth. If for any reason the metal detector gets set off; both doors into the sally port get locked down until the security guys figure out what was going on, And the remote guard may have controls to dispense tear gas or pepper spray automatically.
a person with a violent past and no mental health check should not be allowed to work as security guard.
How is the employer supposed to find out about the violent past part, when there's no criminal charge associated with said violent past?
Even if he had seen a mental health professional, there would be no information about a disorder available to the government or to the firm that hired him, because of privacy laws and professional ethics that mental health professionals adhere to.
Apple would be in an excellent position to brick the devices if they ever made the mistake of accepting an update from Apple.
Apple can probably just remotely block the ability to activate after a factory reset, and remotely enable their 'Find my iPhone' feature, then permanently lock the devices up.
I haven't seen any store having a self-checkout in quite a while..... A few local grocery stores tried them, but there was rampant shoplifting on the self-checkouts, and probably the stores didn't save any money, because they still needed employees to monitor them as a result, Either way, they got rid of them.... the experiment with having self-checkout lanes obviously did not work out.......
Self checkout is no different from a vending machine.... If you see the pricetag for the item, and it matches the amount you put into the machine, then as soon as you complete dispensing and take the item from the machine, it is a done deal.
The only way you can be due more or to reverse the transaction; is if there was a defect in the machine and you put less money than the advertised price and still got the item.
In a brick and mortar environment; the store can cancel the purchase or dishonor the advertised price Up to and until the customer completes the transaction.
After the customer has left with the item, the store cannot come back and decide they want to change the price, Or the price displayed on the shelf and the register was a mistake, and the customer needs to pay the difference.
The store would definitely lose that one.
The store is liable if their employees priced an item incorrectly.
The only way the customer is liable to pay more or return is if the error that was made was in the processing of the payment ---- the correct price was advertised, or the customer agreed to a higher price than they paid, and the cashier told the customer the correct price, but they made the check out for a lower amount, etc.
Customer is not responsible if the store made a bad deal with them, only if there was a bonafide mistake in the handling of their transaction where they paid less than the agreed upon price.
Now.... Microsoft's store is a little different, because they have technical control of the product even after you leave the store
They use outright lies and Total FUD to attack the proposed legislations supporting a right to repair, so the proposed New York right to repair act is in jeapordy.
See Louis Rossmann's video on the right to repair, and how Apple
lobbyists are arguing things like, Replacing a resistor in a Macbook turns the Macbook into a PC, and the repair shops don't disclose that, so
there's an issue, and the independent repair shops are low quality / shady, blah blah blah.
It would be much more efficient for everyone for Netflix to work relatively well under poor network connections.
I suggest allowing end devices to download Divided and Encrypted content which could be played offline, except the player needs a key stream and a low-bandwidth stream with rest of info to reassemble video....
Then instead of streaming video in real-time from Netflix servers.... stream information required to decrypt
in realtime at less than 1 Kilobit per second.
Should be possible to accommodate low-bandwidth connections, by allowing pre-downloads and low bandwidth streaming.
Also, the encrypted and reduced feed ought to be cachea-ble by proxy servers, and distributed through CDNs.
Also, they should make appliances you can put in your LAN that have say a 4TB hard drive and will simply download the entire library over a long period of time (But you will still need a Netflix account to stream them, Because the Encrypted blobs are just the bulk of the data, not 100% of what's necessary to play the content).
Slashdot Mirror
Don't write them..... write to your congresspeople about abuses by media companies. Get some proposed lawful action going that will have a serious negative affect on the companies' bottom line in $$$$.
It was meant to illustrate how we incorrectly assign the poor as being more criminal
No.... That's not right at all. I understand their rates of criminality are similar to the rest of the population for the poor.
The idea is to Get the drug abusers out of those programs.
It doesn't really matter if there are fewer abusers.... If someone can afford the drugs, and they still need to be on that program, then they are misallocating their funds.
I do not approve to have my money wasted in such a manner to test everyone.
It's not that testing them is expensive...... it is that the companies that do the testing are making mint selling massively overpriced tests.
The drug test kit maker might charge more than $100 per test that costs them less than $5 per test in labor and materials.
Up pops Clippy - "It looks like you're voiding a pointer!"
Hey, John, It looks like you want to write some spaghetti code dereferencing Null pointers. Would you like help?
That's all well and good, but how are you going to do when you are served with a summons?
Since you are making addendums to their agreement: you will start by adding a Binding arbitration clause, a choice of jurisdiction, and a "Losing party/Employer commits to pay attorneys fees + X%" rule, a waiver of certain Employer rights, and an "All payments to the employee" are final term.
Then, yes, in the event of actions, you will send an appointed attorney to represent you.
I think requiring companies to pay a 50% salary when a non-compete is in effect is brilliant as they can dictate for whom you can work
I think it is brilliant, but I would suggest making it the greater of 75% of previous salary and 75% of previous salary Based on a 12-month average excluding the previous 30 days.
That can be reduced to zero by providing the employee a new agreement canceling any non-complete.
Otherwise: If you want to lay people off, just cut their salary first.
Or cut everyone's base salary immediately after the law passes, and start providing monthly bonuses which will vary from month to month based on managers' opinions on performance.
Most people Direct-deposit their salary.
Generally, there is a clause in the DD agreement which allows an employer to make a correcting withdrawl, if they erroneously pay you something.
So, unless you close the bank account, they can probably just withdraw the $$, if their contention is payment in error.
This is assuming that they discover the mistake in less than 90 days.
That is my thinking. If you informed them you don't agree to the proposed document, AND they still paid you, Then the money you were paid must be pursuant to a different agreement.
How about attaching an Addendum to the agreement in the middle of the paperwork, and then making a small note when you sign (YOUR NAME) agreed subject to attached addendum.
Why? because YOU don't like them?
No, because it's a hazardous material that isn't properly contained and shouldn't be there, and workers need to get as much of the material away from people as safely as possible.
And Amazon's responsible for it, so they should bear the burden of that, whatever that is, plus penalties to deter further misbehavior or negligence.
Smooth move.... throw the gallon of smuggled hazardous materials off the flight as unauthorized stowaway, and contact the EPA to designate the place where they land as a superfund site, mobilize a few hundred billion $$$ worth of assets and thousands of full-time highly-paid government workers to commense the clean up, and make Amazon pay every dime of the total cleanup bill plus a 100% penalty.
How about a swarm of highly-mobile robot guards equipped with tazers?
They did ask for technological solution......
If the ex-wife had filed a restraining order because of the domestic violence he would have been prohibited from owning a gun.
Only if there was enough evidence to convict. Unless he were convicted of a crime, he could continue to own a gun; temporary orders do not last very long, and you need to be found guilty on a felony count to permanently lose constitutional rights. It is only an option for a judge to temporarily block his right to a firearm while the proceeding is scheduled or in progress.
Certainly by now an issue more than 6 years old would have been addressed.
Also, he could possibly have just disobeyed the order even if it were current. If he had already purchased guns, the guns do not disappear, just because a new order pops up.
Every new visitor who wants to enter will be taken into a small secure private room and be strip-searched by a robot.
Anything that could be used as weapon will have to be checked, once they are confirmed disarmed: a secondary exit will unlock, and the person will be allowed into the secure corridor.
Second, he has to attend a psychic evaluation.
He could sue them under ADA if they act on any medical information other than a fitness-for-duty test.
In other words, the only psych test information they can use is ability to perform the job.
Who knows what the result would be, but he would probably have been cleared.
Yes, but it's a lot, lot harder to stab or bludgeon 50 people to death than to shoot them.
Who says bludgeon is the alternative? The bad guys use incendiaries or explosives.
No, because anyone planning to murder 50 people is just going to shoot the guard(s) at the metal detector and walk in anyway.
You can prevent by having a controlled entry right after the metal detector that can be locked down. Intake a certain number of people into a special "sally port" room where they pass through the metal detector, and the inside door doesn't unlock until the outside door right after the metal detector is shut and locked.
Have a remote guard watching cameras from a secure booth. If for any reason the metal detector gets set off; both doors into the sally port get locked down until the security guys figure out what was going on, And the remote guard may have controls to dispense tear gas or pepper spray automatically.
The gun deaths per capita in countries with strict gun laws are lower than in the US.
The number of gun deaths per capita is lower, but the number of Murders per capita is higher in many cases.
Fewer people die because of guns, but more people die, and there is more violent crime, so on a whole the people in those countries are worse off.
a person with a violent past and no mental health check should not be allowed to work as security guard.
How is the employer supposed to find out about the violent past part, when there's no criminal charge associated with said violent past?
Even if he had seen a mental health professional, there would be no information about a disorder available to the government or to the firm that hired him, because of privacy laws and professional ethics that mental health professionals adhere to.
And it's not autonomous..... what it does and the exact steps it takes is built-in and hardwired into the design
Actually it does serve a purpose , it's designed to get people talking about ethics and robotics.
I suspect his real purpose was to grab headlines and get $$$ to research the question, and he probably succeeded.
Apple would be in an excellent position to brick the devices if they ever made the mistake of accepting an update from Apple.
Apple can probably just remotely block the ability to activate after a factory reset, and remotely enable their 'Find my iPhone' feature, then permanently lock the devices up.
I haven't seen any store having a self-checkout in quite a while..... A few local grocery stores tried them, but there was rampant shoplifting on the self-checkouts, and probably the stores didn't save any money, because they still needed employees to monitor them as a result, Either way, they got rid of them.... the experiment with having self-checkout lanes obviously did not work out.......
Self checkout is no different from a vending machine.... If you see the pricetag for the item, and it matches the amount you put into the machine, then as soon as you complete dispensing and take the item from the machine, it is a done deal.
The only way you can be due more or to reverse the transaction; is if there was a defect in the machine and you put less money than the advertised price and still got the item.
Pricing errors are NOT bait and switch.
Correct. Pricing errors are not bait and switch.
In a brick and mortar environment; the store can cancel the purchase or dishonor the advertised price Up to and until the customer completes the transaction.
After the customer has left with the item, the store cannot come back and decide they want to change the price, Or the price displayed on the shelf and the register was a mistake, and the customer needs to pay the difference.
The store would definitely lose that one. The store is liable if their employees priced an item incorrectly.
The only way the customer is liable to pay more or return is if the error that was made was in the processing of the payment ---- the correct price was advertised, or the customer agreed to a higher price than they paid, and the cashier told the customer the correct price, but they made the check out for a lower amount, etc.
Customer is not responsible if the store made a bad deal with them, only if there was a bonafide mistake in the handling of their transaction where they paid less than the agreed upon price.
Now.... Microsoft's store is a little different, because they have technical control of the product even after you leave the store
Apple lobbyists are extremely deceitful
They use outright lies and Total FUD to attack the proposed legislations supporting a right to repair, so the proposed New York right to repair act is in jeapordy.
See Louis Rossmann's video on the right to repair, and how Apple lobbyists are arguing things like, Replacing a resistor in a Macbook turns the Macbook into a PC, and the repair shops don't disclose that, so there's an issue, and the independent repair shops are low quality / shady, blah blah blah.
It would be much more efficient for everyone for Netflix to work relatively well under poor network connections.
I suggest allowing end devices to download Divided and Encrypted content which could be played offline, except the player needs a key stream and a low-bandwidth stream with rest of info to reassemble video....
Then instead of streaming video in real-time from Netflix servers.... stream information required to decrypt in realtime at less than 1 Kilobit per second.
Should be possible to accommodate low-bandwidth connections, by allowing pre-downloads and low bandwidth streaming.
Also, the encrypted and reduced feed ought to be cachea-ble by proxy servers, and distributed through CDNs.
Also, they should make appliances you can put in your LAN that have say a 4TB hard drive and will simply download the entire library over a long period of time (But you will still need a Netflix account to stream them, Because the Encrypted blobs are just the bulk of the data, not 100% of what's necessary to play the content).