Non-competes have a lot of established case law. Part of it is the usual contract law (which is VERY well established as to what can and cannot be done), but there is more beyond that. Some questions that will be raised: 1) Reasonableness of the terms (e.g. not stealing customer lists, vs. not working in the industry) 2) Impact to the employee. Courts have generally ruled that a non-compete cannot ever interfere with the employees' right to earn a living. IOW, if Amazon wants him off the market for a year, they need to pay him a year's salary. 3) Jurisdiction. Amazon famously avoids a presence in CA (to avoid CA sales tax), so presumably the non-compete was signed in WA. The job with Google is presumably in CA, which forbids such restrictions. This could mean it falls under federal laws regarding interstate commerce.
Learner's permit should be 6-12 months with at least 5 hours per week of driving and 100 combined driving hours in a 6 month period or 200 combined driving hours in one year; a full license should involve a 1 hour road driving test and a half hour skidpan hazard course test.
I think what you just described is basically graduated driver licensing, which is implemented in many states.
Granted, it's a more advanced form, but it's the same concept.
If the instructor doesn't think you're safe on the road, he can require another 12 hours of hazard and 50 hours of driving to re-apply.
We already have that. It's called "failing the class"
All of those commercials from the 1960s showed happy housewives cooking up their family's turkey dinner with all the trimmings in the new microwave. I actually own some of the old cookbooks that even tell you how to do it. Guess what? That never came to pass. Because most food cooked in the microwave is *terrible*.
The problem is that you can't just swap in a different cooking method and expect the same results. If you decided to (for example) deep fry that same turkey, unaltered, it would also have bad (even dangerous) results. While much of the gourmet and other higher-quality dishes are made sans microwave, a quick search for microwave cooking reveals a fair amount of useful ideas. Some of these are much more difficult with other methods.
This is also why many of these ideas are worthless - they would require a change in recipes and methodology, or we would get different results.
The system as a whole moves slowly. A year is actually a fairly short amount of time to try (and fail) to work it out within the system, and then get a lawyer to file suit.
There is a very big difference between the two scenarios - There was a major shitstorm recently when someone (may have been Facebook itself, I don't remember) was falsely claiming endorsement from people.
It's one thing for them to gather all sorts of data about me. It's quite another to make it up.
Phones are rarely (intentionally) locked by frequency. Most are locked by SIM.
Frequency locking happens when a phone simply doesn't support frequencies used by another carrier. A quick glance at this chart shows that GSM carriers are no better than CDMA on supporting more frequencies.
That's not unique to Linux. Windows has done the same thing for a very long time.
Besides, it's not the connector that matters, it's the chipset. IDE mode works as a compatibility mode, so the OS should fall back on generic calls. Early SATA support was a problem because it required a separate chipset, and thus different drivers.
HDD access will definitely have to be set to IDE mode, since software from 2001 will not have support for AHCI/etc
The BIOS settings do have an effect though - back when PATA drives were assigned hdx and SATA/SCSI drives were assigned sdx, setting the BIOS to legacy mode would make a SATA drive show as PATA drives in Linux.
Of course, this was on older systems, and that legacy option was a bit different than the modern IDE/AHCI/RAID option. YMMV
According to that link, even if you are salaried, you must work over 62 hours to drop below minimum wage.
You didn't specify what position, but I doubt that working in a theater would count as an "executive, administrative, professional and outside sales employees. "
Again, check local laws. Many (most?) have restrictions beyond what the feds require.
2-bedroom apt, no roommate in years. In a fairly large city, too. Are some cities just that expensive that I would need an extra $10k+ just for rent/etc?
Something a lot of people forget is that with a 2-income home, we get a 2-income lifestyle. You could probably still do what they did in the 50s, but you would have to give up a lot of what we value more.
You and your (soon to be) wife would have to share a car. Dining out would be extremely rare. No cable, internet, cell phone, etc. You would mend clothes, rather than buy new ones. You would have a smaller, simpler house. You would not have anywhere near as many gadgets, of any type. A lot of kitchen gadgets arose from the idea of having extra, disposable income.
This is all on top of a sense of fulfillment. Most women I know would not be satisfied with just being a housewife. Those vacations are nice, but I bet that if you were to do it more long-term (say 3 months+), you would suffer from boredom and depression.
I've been living quite well on <$30k. I wonder what kind of area you live in, or what kind of extra amenities you can't live without, that make it so difficult for you.
I will grant that it would be much more difficult with kids, buts that's to be expected.
Simply adding "I think" does not protect it from any claims of libel/slander. Nor does phrasing it as a question, etc.
To recover in a libel or slander suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication.
To prove that the material was defamatory, the plaintiff must show that at least one other person who saw or heard it understood it as having defamatory meaning. It is necessary to show not that all who heard or read the statement understood it to be defamatory, but only that one person other than the plaintiff did so. Therefore, even if the defendant contends that the communication was a joke, if one person other than the plaintiff took it seriously, the communication is considered defamatory.
That lowered me to about $5/hour beneath minimum wage.
My previous job had me working similar hours, and I was only $2.60 beneath minimum wage. I did start taking my breaks, until they gave me a written warning and a threat of dismissal.
You should look into your local laws. It's called minimum wage for a reason, and I'm not aware of anywhere (in the US) where violations are not a big deal.
When I go to temp agencies, they look at my skill set (Computer Science degree, 10 years in IT support and networking, 6 years in media production) and tell me that there's just no work out there, and if I come back in a couple of weeks they might have something but I should probably look at getting my forklift licence and start at the bottom in retail or warehousing.
Either you are applying at the wrong agencies (there are many that deal exclusively in unskilled labor), or you are in the wrong market. Unpleasant as it may be, you might have to move to a different city/state to stay with that career.
Granted, the prices are all MSRP, so as to not alienate Best Buy/etc. There's no incentive to buy from them, but the option is there.
Dell and HP also have online stores. In fact, I've found it to be EXTREMELY rare for anything in tech to have a corporate site, and not have the option of buying it from them directly. Few things are more infuriating than when I'm at the manufacturer's page, decide to buy a product, and it says "This item is available from these fine retailers." It's even worse, since said retailers never have the part in stock.
Customers test drive and look at the cars at a dealership and then buy them from the non-dealerships. And then probably try to get support from the dealerships.
This isn't usually an issue. Most dealerships are selling manufacturer warranties, which are valid nationwide at any dealer. When you have a warranty claim, you take it to any dealer. Their manufacturer-certified service center fixes it, and sends the bill to the manufacturer. The dealer makes a healthy profit, even though you bought the car elsewhere.
I could be wrong, but I do believe that it's illegal in all 50 states to even ASK questions like that as part of the hiring process. If they are asking, you should contact a lawyer immediately.
Conversely, don't advertise it. I've been told that a lot of companies have a strict policy of throwing out every resume that includes any of these details. This applies whether it's the minority answer, or the majority. That way, if someone tries to claim they were discriminated against, the company can say that they simply didn't know.
Granted, it may not always be possible to strictly conceal it (e.g. race and gender will be clear enough after an interview, and your name may indicate things like religion and national origin), but remove anything you can that suggests religion, sexual orientation, etc. An employer doesn't need to know where you attend church, or who you like to have sex with. If there is an issue, e.g. not being able to work on Saturday for religious reasons, focus on what they need to know - you aren't able to work on Saturdays, because of prior obligations.
It concerns me that Kingston is going down this path. Many of the brands I used to trust just a few years ago are completely worthless now, and usually for this reason.
I also can't think of one that started down this road, then redeemed themselves.
A better approach might be to include a warning on all FUTURE reviews. If I'm looking at a review that includes a nice big warning that the brand is known to switch to cheaper, lower-quality parts after the reviews are in, I'd be MUCH more inclined to go elsewhere.
Realistically, the e-mails wouldn't say that, because it's simply not part of the equation. They didn't choose an inferior part with the intent of screwing over the customer. They did it to increase profit.
It's the same as when they save on the packaging by ordering it from a different paper supplier.
Check your firewall logs. That data grows quickly. There's probably a separate entry for every single element of every single page you visit. That's just for HTTP. Throw in BitTorrent (etc) and it quickly becomes unlikely to be logged.
Unless each login is given a unique public IP (unlikely), they will be behind some form of NAT. When the lawsuit comes in, it will name the public IP. In the past, this was easy enough to just say that it belongs to John Smith, at 123 Fake St, since that is who controls the NAT gateway in question. It did not matter which device behind the NAT was responsible, since they all presumably belonged to John Smith.
However, this is not a new issue for Comcast. It applies to anyone running a semi-public hotspot, such as many hotels. To reliably point to a specific user, it would require a ridiculous amount of logging. I doubt that Comcast will do that.
Serious question - have you ever had a "customer service" issue with the IRS? Billing error, lost check, etc?
I've never had one at the federal level, but when I've contacted several municipalities' tax offices, they've always been prompt, courteous, and helpful. I've heard the IRS is the same. Not thrilled that they exist exclusively to get my money, but they handled it professionally.
Given the scenario we're discussing, I would put real money on the SSL issue not stopping the vast majority of people.
Note: I am not in a Comcast area. I don't have first-hand experience with them, so this is all speculation.
That being said, I'm pretty sure this will be run on a captive portal (same as most hotels/coffee shops/etc), where the first UNENCRYPTED HTTP address will be redirected to a login page. The user will then have to supply whatever credentials that Comcast requires.
The attack is simple - instead of redirecting to the legitimate Comcast site (we'll even assume that site would be SSL, and can't be spoofed), it redirects to an unencrypted site that looks the same. People are used to this (many captive portals don't use SSL, so it's not something most people would look for). It would even have a Comcast address (via DNS poisoning), so most people, even some that observe the lack of SSL, will just assume that Comcast cheaped out/screwed up, and didn't implement SSL for this.
Slashdot Mirror
Non-competes have a lot of established case law. Part of it is the usual contract law (which is VERY well established as to what can and cannot be done), but there is more beyond that. Some questions that will be raised:
1) Reasonableness of the terms (e.g. not stealing customer lists, vs. not working in the industry)
2) Impact to the employee. Courts have generally ruled that a non-compete cannot ever interfere with the employees' right to earn a living. IOW, if Amazon wants him off the market for a year, they need to pay him a year's salary.
3) Jurisdiction. Amazon famously avoids a presence in CA (to avoid CA sales tax), so presumably the non-compete was signed in WA. The job with Google is presumably in CA, which forbids such restrictions. This could mean it falls under federal laws regarding interstate commerce.
It also seems to bear resemblence to this case
Source
I think what you just described is basically graduated driver licensing, which is implemented in many states.
Granted, it's a more advanced form, but it's the same concept.
We already have that. It's called "failing the class"
The problem is that you can't just swap in a different cooking method and expect the same results. If you decided to (for example) deep fry that same turkey, unaltered, it would also have bad (even dangerous) results. While much of the gourmet and other higher-quality dishes are made sans microwave, a quick search for microwave cooking reveals a fair amount of useful ideas. Some of these are much more difficult with other methods.
This is also why many of these ideas are worthless - they would require a change in recipes and methodology, or we would get different results.
The system as a whole moves slowly. A year is actually a fairly short amount of time to try (and fail) to work it out within the system, and then get a lawyer to file suit.
Of course, this is assuming his claim is legit.
There is a very big difference between the two scenarios - There was a major shitstorm recently when someone (may have been Facebook itself, I don't remember) was falsely claiming endorsement from people.
It's one thing for them to gather all sorts of data about me. It's quite another to make it up.
Phones are rarely (intentionally) locked by frequency. Most are locked by SIM.
Frequency locking happens when a phone simply doesn't support frequencies used by another carrier. A quick glance at this chart shows that GSM carriers are no better than CDMA on supporting more frequencies.
These articles may be of interest to you.
Arguably you are still correct, in that you, yourself should consent, making it a Tragedy of the commons
That's not unique to Linux. Windows has done the same thing for a very long time.
Besides, it's not the connector that matters, it's the chipset. IDE mode works as a compatibility mode, so the OS should fall back on generic calls. Early SATA support was a problem because it required a separate chipset, and thus different drivers.
HDD access will definitely have to be set to IDE mode, since software from 2001 will not have support for AHCI/etc
The BIOS settings do have an effect though - back when PATA drives were assigned hdx and SATA/SCSI drives were assigned sdx, setting the BIOS to legacy mode would make a SATA drive show as PATA drives in Linux.
Of course, this was on older systems, and that legacy option was a bit different than the modern IDE/AHCI/RAID option. YMMV
According to that link, even if you are salaried, you must work over 62 hours to drop below minimum wage.
You didn't specify what position, but I doubt that working in a theater would count as an "executive, administrative, professional and outside sales employees. "
Again, check local laws. Many (most?) have restrictions beyond what the feds require.
2-bedroom apt, no roommate in years. In a fairly large city, too. Are some cities just that expensive that I would need an extra $10k+ just for rent/etc?
Something a lot of people forget is that with a 2-income home, we get a 2-income lifestyle. You could probably still do what they did in the 50s, but you would have to give up a lot of what we value more.
You and your (soon to be) wife would have to share a car. Dining out would be extremely rare. No cable, internet, cell phone, etc. You would mend clothes, rather than buy new ones. You would have a smaller, simpler house. You would not have anywhere near as many gadgets, of any type. A lot of kitchen gadgets arose from the idea of having extra, disposable income.
This is all on top of a sense of fulfillment. Most women I know would not be satisfied with just being a housewife. Those vacations are nice, but I bet that if you were to do it more long-term (say 3 months+), you would suffer from boredom and depression.
I've been living quite well on <$30k. I wonder what kind of area you live in, or what kind of extra amenities you can't live without, that make it so difficult for you.
I will grant that it would be much more difficult with kids, buts that's to be expected.
Simply adding "I think" does not protect it from any claims of libel/slander. Nor does phrasing it as a question, etc.
Source:
You should look into your local laws. It's called minimum wage for a reason, and I'm not aware of anywhere (in the US) where violations are not a big deal.
Either you are applying at the wrong agencies (there are many that deal exclusively in unskilled labor), or you are in the wrong market. Unpleasant as it may be, you might have to move to a different city/state to stay with that career.
Counter-example: Buy a new hard drive direct from Seagate
Granted, the prices are all MSRP, so as to not alienate Best Buy/etc. There's no incentive to buy from them, but the option is there.
Dell and HP also have online stores. In fact, I've found it to be EXTREMELY rare for anything in tech to have a corporate site, and not have the option of buying it from them directly. Few things are more infuriating than when I'm at the manufacturer's page, decide to buy a product, and it says "This item is available from these fine retailers." It's even worse, since said retailers never have the part in stock.
This isn't usually an issue. Most dealerships are selling manufacturer warranties, which are valid nationwide at any dealer. When you have a warranty claim, you take it to any dealer. Their manufacturer-certified service center fixes it, and sends the bill to the manufacturer. The dealer makes a healthy profit, even though you bought the car elsewhere.
I could be wrong, but I do believe that it's illegal in all 50 states to even ASK questions like that as part of the hiring process. If they are asking, you should contact a lawyer immediately.
Conversely, don't advertise it. I've been told that a lot of companies have a strict policy of throwing out every resume that includes any of these details. This applies whether it's the minority answer, or the majority. That way, if someone tries to claim they were discriminated against, the company can say that they simply didn't know.
Granted, it may not always be possible to strictly conceal it (e.g. race and gender will be clear enough after an interview, and your name may indicate things like religion and national origin), but remove anything you can that suggests religion, sexual orientation, etc. An employer doesn't need to know where you attend church, or who you like to have sex with. If there is an issue, e.g. not being able to work on Saturday for religious reasons, focus on what they need to know - you aren't able to work on Saturdays, because of prior obligations.
It concerns me that Kingston is going down this path. Many of the brands I used to trust just a few years ago are completely worthless now, and usually for this reason.
I also can't think of one that started down this road, then redeemed themselves.
A better approach might be to include a warning on all FUTURE reviews. If I'm looking at a review that includes a nice big warning that the brand is known to switch to cheaper, lower-quality parts after the reviews are in, I'd be MUCH more inclined to go elsewhere.
Realistically, the e-mails wouldn't say that, because it's simply not part of the equation. They didn't choose an inferior part with the intent of screwing over the customer. They did it to increase profit.
It's the same as when they save on the packaging by ordering it from a different paper supplier.
Check your firewall logs. That data grows quickly. There's probably a separate entry for every single element of every single page you visit. That's just for HTTP. Throw in BitTorrent (etc) and it quickly becomes unlikely to be logged.
I don't think it's as simple as that.
Unless each login is given a unique public IP (unlikely), they will be behind some form of NAT. When the lawsuit comes in, it will name the public IP. In the past, this was easy enough to just say that it belongs to John Smith, at 123 Fake St, since that is who controls the NAT gateway in question. It did not matter which device behind the NAT was responsible, since they all presumably belonged to John Smith.
However, this is not a new issue for Comcast. It applies to anyone running a semi-public hotspot, such as many hotels. To reliably point to a specific user, it would require a ridiculous amount of logging. I doubt that Comcast will do that.
Serious question - have you ever had a "customer service" issue with the IRS? Billing error, lost check, etc?
I've never had one at the federal level, but when I've contacted several municipalities' tax offices, they've always been prompt, courteous, and helpful. I've heard the IRS is the same. Not thrilled that they exist exclusively to get my money, but they handled it professionally.
Contrast that to any telecom.
Given the scenario we're discussing, I would put real money on the SSL issue not stopping the vast majority of people.
Note: I am not in a Comcast area. I don't have first-hand experience with them, so this is all speculation.
That being said, I'm pretty sure this will be run on a captive portal (same as most hotels/coffee shops/etc), where the first UNENCRYPTED HTTP address will be redirected to a login page. The user will then have to supply whatever credentials that Comcast requires.
The attack is simple - instead of redirecting to the legitimate Comcast site (we'll even assume that site would be SSL, and can't be spoofed), it redirects to an unencrypted site that looks the same. People are used to this (many captive portals don't use SSL, so it's not something most people would look for).
It would even have a Comcast address (via DNS poisoning), so most people, even some that observe the lack of SSL, will just assume that Comcast cheaped out/screwed up, and didn't implement SSL for this.