Something tells me that if 100,000 people get $50 refunds from Amazon due to Sony's actions, and Sony refuses to pay them the $5,000,000 paid out, Amazon might be a little less willing to carry Sony products in the future. Sony really has to decide which hill they want to die on; screwing over retailers is not in their long-term self interest.
That's funny, as a parent of four children the only ones who get any input into where to eat are the ones over 18. And then only if they're paying (or if they suggest a place with good margaritas).
Unlike some people, I don't need the state to make me a good parent. I got plenty from my own parents on that one.
The FCC already tried that got smacked down by the courts. So they have to wait for Congress to do something.
And I go back to what I previously said: just because a contract has a given clause doesn't mean that clause is valid. For one party to be able to change the terms of a contract at will, with the other party presumed to have agreed to it just because they did nothing, is unconscionable. Why that practice is considered acceptable by our courts is beyond me.
If you're paying for a service that requires using someone's else property, they have voluntarily transferred some of their interest and rights in that property to you. Your landlord can't come into the house you're renting from him just because he feels like it, even if a clause permitting it is in the lease agreement. In the same way, if an ISP sells you access to the Internet, they can't start blocking you from certain parts of it without changing the agreement, which requires your consent (after all, it's a contract, and contracts require all parties to agree to it).
Whether the courts would agree with this interpretation is another matter, but this is the way I see it.
So now it's illegal to have a sketchy sense of humor? Isn't this sort of thing protected by the First Amendment? It's not like he actually went through with trying to enslave his kids or anything.
Here's hoping a judge tosses this pile of nonsense quickly.
Defending yourself, someone else, or your property isn't quite the same as seeking vengeance after the fact. The way it works in the States is, if you catch someone in the act of committing certain crimes (like terrorizing you on your property), you have license to take their life. But you can't hunt them down after the fact, once the immediate threat has gone away.
That said, I can't see a farmer who snaps (like in your example) not getting off fairly easily. Especially here in Texas, where property is pretty sacrosanct.
And what happens when a DA declines to prosecute you and the guy's family decides his fate was undeserved and comes looking for you for vengeance? Where does it end?
Part of living in a civilized society is giving up your "right" to vengeance and letting the authorities take care of the problem. If they don't, the solution is to get better authorities, not to take the law into your own hands.
Facebook's first round of venture capital funding ($US500,000) came from former Paypal CEO Peter Thiel. Author of anti-multicultural tome 'The Diversity Myth', he is also on the board of radical conservative group VanguardPAC.
OMG! One of the people who invested in Facebook has political views you don't like! It's the end of the world! Facebook are a bunch of racists and only a racist would ever use them!
Even if he were fired for violating the written policy, the policy itself, because it is only a notion, could not do the firing. A human being would. Dur.
You've obviously never served in the military. The rule there is, follow your last order. So in reality. Lt Foo wouldn't get in trouble for following Capt Bar's orders that went against Maj Baz's, though his captain might. But he would get in trouble for not following them in the first place.
But it is illegal to violate a court's gag order. So watch as a new, automatic, clause is inserted in every single warrant to access Google's systems going forward. Something to the effect of establishing a gag order on the recipient of the warrant.
A written policy can't fire you and won't be there to help you get your job back. When in doubt, do your job (though it helps if you can get the request in writing to CYA later).
That's not what the right protects. It just says you can't be forced to be a witness against yourself. You don't have to be guilty of a crime to refuse to testify about something you may or may not know.
Slashdot Mirror
lead baloon
I think I figured out why the launch failed.
Something tells me that if 100,000 people get $50 refunds from Amazon due to Sony's actions, and Sony refuses to pay them the $5,000,000 paid out, Amazon might be a little less willing to carry Sony products in the future. Sony really has to decide which hill they want to die on; screwing over retailers is not in their long-term self interest.
This seems like a good idea to me.
Really? Because with all the caveats you just listed, it sounds like nothing but pure grandstanding to me.
That's funny, as a parent of four children the only ones who get any input into where to eat are the ones over 18. And then only if they're paying (or if they suggest a place with good margaritas).
Unlike some people, I don't need the state to make me a good parent. I got plenty from my own parents on that one.
Wow so where exactly does it say government officials have to regulate every thing about our lives?
I dunno, according to certain politicians that's the whole reason behind the Commerce Clause. Or was it the Good and Welfare Clause?
The FCC already tried that got smacked down by the courts. So they have to wait for Congress to do something.
And I go back to what I previously said: just because a contract has a given clause doesn't mean that clause is valid. For one party to be able to change the terms of a contract at will, with the other party presumed to have agreed to it just because they did nothing, is unconscionable. Why that practice is considered acceptable by our courts is beyond me.
Hidee-ho!
It's like being a long distance truck driver, except without the steering wheel and rest stop hookers.
When did the airlines get rid of stewardesses? At least they still have blackjack, right?
If you're paying for a service that requires using someone's else property, they have voluntarily transferred some of their interest and rights in that property to you. Your landlord can't come into the house you're renting from him just because he feels like it, even if a clause permitting it is in the lease agreement. In the same way, if an ISP sells you access to the Internet, they can't start blocking you from certain parts of it without changing the agreement, which requires your consent (after all, it's a contract, and contracts require all parties to agree to it).
Whether the courts would agree with this interpretation is another matter, but this is the way I see it.
No I think he's suggesting SNL was once a comedy program. Personally, I find that difficult to believe.
So now it's illegal to have a sketchy sense of humor? Isn't this sort of thing protected by the First Amendment? It's not like he actually went through with trying to enslave his kids or anything.
Here's hoping a judge tosses this pile of nonsense quickly.
Defending yourself, someone else, or your property isn't quite the same as seeking vengeance after the fact. The way it works in the States is, if you catch someone in the act of committing certain crimes (like terrorizing you on your property), you have license to take their life. But you can't hunt them down after the fact, once the immediate threat has gone away.
That said, I can't see a farmer who snaps (like in your example) not getting off fairly easily. Especially here in Texas, where property is pretty sacrosanct.
And what happens when a DA declines to prosecute you and the guy's family decides his fate was undeserved and comes looking for you for vengeance? Where does it end?
Part of living in a civilized society is giving up your "right" to vengeance and letting the authorities take care of the problem. If they don't, the solution is to get better authorities, not to take the law into your own hands.
Facebook's first round of venture capital funding ($US500,000) came from former Paypal CEO Peter Thiel. Author of anti-multicultural tome 'The Diversity Myth', he is also on the board of radical conservative group VanguardPAC.
OMG! One of the people who invested in Facebook has political views you don't like! It's the end of the world! Facebook are a bunch of racists and only a racist would ever use them!
No true Scotsman would ever say Catholics aren't Christians.
Even if he were fired for violating the written policy, the policy itself, because it is only a notion, could not do the firing. A human being would. Dur.
that's just as cool as it gets outside of riding a comet out of the solar system.
Know what would make that even cooler? If Cassini were wearing a cowboy hat and yelling "Yee-haw!" as it dove into the planet. Best. Re-entry. Ever.
You've obviously never served in the military. The rule there is, follow your last order. So in reality. Lt Foo wouldn't get in trouble for following Capt Bar's orders that went against Maj Baz's, though his captain might. But he would get in trouble for not following them in the first place.
But it is illegal to violate a court's gag order. So watch as a new, automatic, clause is inserted in every single warrant to access Google's systems going forward. Something to the effect of establishing a gag order on the recipient of the warrant.
A written policy can't fire you and won't be there to help you get your job back. When in doubt, do your job (though it helps if you can get the request in writing to CYA later).
I thought the problem was the expulsion of highly-charged particles? Plasma, or whatever it's called. After all, the thing's gotta have a tailpipe.
They're going to eat anyway so what's the problem?
That explains why that new temp is always spitting her curd on the monitor in her cube.
That's not what the right protects. It just says you can't be forced to be a witness against yourself. You don't have to be guilty of a crime to refuse to testify about something you may or may not know.
What's this "we" shit, white man? No one I know would ever assume I'm any kind of sexist pig.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to tell my wife to make me a samwich.