I mean, as the stories are saying here, that Oulson started yelling at Reeves once Reeves came back, demanding to know if Reeves had reported Oulson to the theater management, and that Oulson threw "an object" at Reeves which reports indicates was a bag of popcorn.
You seem to think Oulson was throwing individual pieces of popcorn at Reeves. That is not the case. Oulson was standing, facing Reeves and away from the screen, yelling and threw a bag of popcorn. Oulson's wife was injured because she had her hand on Oulson's chest attempting to pull him away from Reeves.
Just so you know, under the law here throwing a bag of popcorn at someone is considered assault. Hitting someone with a bag of popcorn is considered battery.
The illegality here is that management in Oracle was basing it's pay decisions on the national origin of the employee.They didn't say "We think this particular employee is only worth $50,000.00 per year." They said "We think Indians are only worth $50,000.00 per year". The law specifically states that it is illegal to base pay for someone on said someone's national origin. Management did just that.
You may not like the law, but the law is clear. What Oracle said was clear and it was a clear violation of the law.
It certainly is good money for someone — whatever their race — in India, where that same person was earning much less...
FTFY. For the position in the U.S. where other residents of the U.S. are paid $60,000 per year, it is not so good.
Spandow was fired because he protested the violation of the Equal Employment Opportunity laws. See, it is against the law to pay one less simply because of one's country of origin.
I live in the area and have been watching this unfold in the local news. I am amazed at the comments coming from users who are apparently basing their comments on this one report and their preconceived assumptions.
Let's have some facts:
The shooter, Reeves, is 71. The victim, Oulson, was 43. Oulson's wife is 33.
Reeves left the theater for a short time. There are no reports locally that he went to retrieve his gun. There are reports that he went to get a manager.
Once Reeves returned, he was confronted by Oulson as to whether Reeves reported Oulson to the manager. It was at this time that a physical altercation ensued and Oulson was shot.
All reports I have seen say a bag of popcorn was thrown. Some reports seem to indicate that Oulson threw the bag of popcorn at Reeves.
Reeves shot once, hitting Oulson in the chest. Oulson's wife was shot in the hand because her hand was between the gun and Ouslon's chest.
Living in the area and having been to that particular theater and having watched this unfold locally, I would like you to provide a link to a reputable news source that states that. Every news source I have seen states Reeves either left the theater to talk to a manager or simply left the theater and came back a short time later. And, in all cases, Oulson confronts Reeves about Reeves possibly reporting him to the management.
First, flying cars was just an analogy, possibly a poor one.
Second, you are not seeing the forest for the trees, or quite possibly the reverse. It is not possible to design a good law that accommodates unknown future technological innovations. The biggest problem is at the interface, not in the individual cases. Cars are regulated primarily by state laws, but planes are regulated by federal law. Who decides what is appropriate for flying cars? Do FAA rules dictate instrumentation or do state car laws or do both? What if the laws conflict? What about rules for radio communication? How about speed limits and minimum take off and landing speeds? If someone lands a plane with a 60 MPH stall speed on a 45 MPH road, will he get a ticket? How about taking off? What if a flying car needs 80 MPH to take off? Is it regulated to flying only from airports and runways? Will the car have to have a tail number painted on the side? FAA requires red lights on the port side be visible from both the front and back. Cars are required to have red lights in the back and many locations ban having red lights visible from the front, which brings the two sets of laws into conflict.
Imagine if traffic laws in the 1950s were written to accommodate flying cars. How long would those flying car laws stay on the books? And, if we ever get flying cars, would they still be applicable? Imagine if the laws mandated that all flying cars use Visual-Aural Radio Range for navigation, a system which no longer exists.
My commute is 30-40 minutes of bumper to bumper, straight line traffic. Any self-driving car should be able to handle it.
The fasted bus route is 1 hour 30 minutes requires 1.5 miles of walking and a transfer. It would be quicker to ride a bicycle, but much more dangerous as I live in a city and state that are both infamous for being dangerous for bicyclists. And, that doesn't even mention the weather.
It clearly spells out the software isn't suitable for health/medical devices, aircraft maintenance, and a whole raft of things.
But, there's tons of stuff which do those things using Windows.
And, Microsoft would be in clear but the company that build the software would be liable for, possibly criminal, negligence for using an inappropriate operating system, regardless of the EULA of the car/software.
That describes criminal negligence. The owner of the vehicle is still liable for the financial costs of the wreck, but can file suit against the manufacturer to recoup losses.
No, just as one doesn't sit in jail if one runs over a kid because one's brakes fail for a reason that one is not responsible for, such as damage to a brake line caused by road debris. But, if one hits another car, one is still financially liable for the damage to the other car and can possibly attempt to recoup the money by civil suit if a responsible party can be determined.
All one has to do is compare it to a situation involving another driverless vehicle: a car that rolls down a hill.
If one owns a car parked on a hill and, for whatever reason, the car rolls down the hill, one is liable for any damages that results as well as any fines or penalties.
If one believes the car rolled down the hill because of a defect in the car, then one can attempt to hold the manufacturer of the car liable for the damages, penalties, fines, etc..
If one can show that a third party did something to the car to cause it to roll down the hill, then one can attempt to hold the third party liable.
In any of the cases, the owner of the vehicle is primarily liable. In the second and third cases, the owner can attempt to recoup losses by holding a third party liable, but will still be liable for any damages caused regardless of resolution with the third party.
Saying a business sucks by stating falsely that one has used the business and it sucked while in truth one does not like the owner donating money to a political campaign is a lie and libelous.
Saying simply that the business sucks without stating the reason you believe it sucks is the political leanings of the owner is a lie. You don't think the business sucks, you think the owner sucks and are attempting to hurt the owner financially for exercising his right to free speech and association. That is both immoral and unethical.
And, it is also plain that anonymity has sometimes been assumed for the most destructive purposes. Using anonymity to damage a rival's reputation is the later. And, reviewers are not a persecuted group or sect.
Anonymity creates a bias for biased bad reviews, especially from competitors, shills paid by competitors, people who didn't get their way when said people were wrong, and griefers.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, as the stories are saying here, that Oulson started yelling at Reeves once Reeves came back, demanding to know if Reeves had reported Oulson to the theater management, and that Oulson threw "an object" at Reeves which reports indicates was a bag of popcorn.
You seem to think Oulson was throwing individual pieces of popcorn at Reeves. That is not the case. Oulson was standing, facing Reeves and away from the screen, yelling and threw a bag of popcorn. Oulson's wife was injured because she had her hand on Oulson's chest attempting to pull him away from Reeves.
Just so you know, under the law here throwing a bag of popcorn at someone is considered assault. Hitting someone with a bag of popcorn is considered battery.
The illegality here is that management in Oracle was basing it's pay decisions on the national origin of the employee.They didn't say "We think this particular employee is only worth $50,000.00 per year." They said "We think Indians are only worth $50,000.00 per year". The law specifically states that it is illegal to base pay for someone on said someone's national origin. Management did just that.
You may not like the law, but the law is clear. What Oracle said was clear and it was a clear violation of the law.
I fear for the future because so many think being an asshole is public is right and no one should be allowed to confront the assholes in question.
This whole thing would never have happened if people were respectful of each other and the general public.
If you would have taken the time to read the news, you would have known that he left the theater to talk to the manager and never went to his car .
The shooter is 71 years old. The shooter may die before he goes to trial, let alone go to prison.
It certainly is good money for someone — whatever their race — in India, where that same person was earning much less...
FTFY. For the position in the U.S. where other residents of the U.S. are paid $60,000 per year, it is not so good. Spandow was fired because he protested the violation of the Equal Employment Opportunity laws. See, it is against the law to pay one less simply because of one's country of origin.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the first federal law designed to protect most U.S. employees from employment discrimination based upon that employee's (or applicant's) race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (Public Law 88-352, July 2, 1964, 78 Stat. 253, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et. seq.)[Emphasis added
Let's have some facts:
There is a very recent article about Reeve's appearance in court and what
Your post is wrong. Reeves, the shooter, left the theater to talk to a manager, not to get his gun.
Living in the area and having been to that particular theater and having watched this unfold locally, I would like you to provide a link to a reputable news source that states that. Every news source I have seen states Reeves either left the theater to talk to a manager or simply left the theater and came back a short time later. And, in all cases, Oulson confronts Reeves about Reeves possibly reporting him to the management.
First, flying cars was just an analogy, possibly a poor one.
Second, you are not seeing the forest for the trees, or quite possibly the reverse. It is not possible to design a good law that accommodates unknown future technological innovations. The biggest problem is at the interface, not in the individual cases. Cars are regulated primarily by state laws, but planes are regulated by federal law. Who decides what is appropriate for flying cars? Do FAA rules dictate instrumentation or do state car laws or do both? What if the laws conflict? What about rules for radio communication? How about speed limits and minimum take off and landing speeds? If someone lands a plane with a 60 MPH stall speed on a 45 MPH road, will he get a ticket? How about taking off? What if a flying car needs 80 MPH to take off? Is it regulated to flying only from airports and runways? Will the car have to have a tail number painted on the side? FAA requires red lights on the port side be visible from both the front and back. Cars are required to have red lights in the back and many locations ban having red lights visible from the front, which brings the two sets of laws into conflict.
Current law is appropriate for this. See my post on cars rolling down hill. The owner is liable.
Imagine if traffic laws in the 1950s were written to accommodate flying cars. How long would those flying car laws stay on the books? And, if we ever get flying cars, would they still be applicable? Imagine if the laws mandated that all flying cars use Visual-Aural Radio Range for navigation, a system which no longer exists.
Saying "Joe's Carpets sucks 1/5" when one doesn't have any knowledge of Joe's Carpets is a lie crafted to hurt the business of Joe's Carpets.
My commute is 30-40 minutes of bumper to bumper, straight line traffic. Any self-driving car should be able to handle it.
The fasted bus route is 1 hour 30 minutes requires 1.5 miles of walking and a transfer. It would be quicker to ride a bicycle, but much more dangerous as I live in a city and state that are both infamous for being dangerous for bicyclists. And, that doesn't even mention the weather.
See my post about unattended cars parked on hills that roll down the hill.
And, Microsoft would be in clear but the company that build the software would be liable for, possibly criminal, negligence for using an inappropriate operating system, regardless of the EULA of the car/software.
That describes criminal negligence. The owner of the vehicle is still liable for the financial costs of the wreck, but can file suit against the manufacturer to recoup losses.
No, just as one doesn't sit in jail if one runs over a kid because one's brakes fail for a reason that one is not responsible for, such as damage to a brake line caused by road debris. But, if one hits another car, one is still financially liable for the damage to the other car and can possibly attempt to recoup the money by civil suit if a responsible party can be determined.
Montreal Metro, Vancouver Skyline, etc., collectively known as the owners, are liable.
All one has to do is compare it to a situation involving another driverless vehicle: a car that rolls down a hill. If one owns a car parked on a hill and, for whatever reason, the car rolls down the hill, one is liable for any damages that results as well as any fines or penalties.
If one believes the car rolled down the hill because of a defect in the car, then one can attempt to hold the manufacturer of the car liable for the damages, penalties, fines, etc..
If one can show that a third party did something to the car to cause it to roll down the hill, then one can attempt to hold the third party liable.
In any of the cases, the owner of the vehicle is primarily liable. In the second and third cases, the owner can attempt to recoup losses by holding a third party liable, but will still be liable for any damages caused regardless of resolution with the third party.
Saying a business sucks by stating falsely that one has used the business and it sucked while in truth one does not like the owner donating money to a political campaign is a lie and libelous.
Saying simply that the business sucks without stating the reason you believe it sucks is the political leanings of the owner is a lie. You don't think the business sucks, you think the owner sucks and are attempting to hurt the owner financially for exercising his right to free speech and association. That is both immoral and unethical.
Either way, it is a lie and you are a liar.
And, it is also plain that anonymity has sometimes been assumed for the most destructive purposes. Using anonymity to damage a rival's reputation is the later. And, reviewers are not a persecuted group or sect.
Anonymity creates a bias for biased bad reviews, especially from competitors, shills paid by competitors, people who didn't get their way when said people were wrong, and griefers.
The time fame is more like 2-6 months for training. 18 years is if you want to grow them from scratch.
On the money side, for professional soldiers, yes. For rebel groups in places like Lybia and Syria, no.