If that number were anywhere close to accurate, we would have massive amounts of starvation across the globe, considering the current population is more than 12,000 times the number you provided for the theoretical max population.
My wife uses a Polar heart rate monitor (http://www.polarusa.com, I forget which model). All of the data is stored in CSV files for easy import into spreadsheets and databases.
Would've been nice if you had mentioned that earlier. Most of the informed discussion about whether or not their activity was legal or not focused on laws in the US, which mean jackall to a site in the UK. In the future, please provide a little more information in your summary so that people can actually help answer your question instead of running off on tangents that have no help of giving any assistance whatsoever.
If the email in question is about a multi-million dollar business deal, then I guarantee you they have a right to have their email read. Suggesting otherwise is a good way to torpedo your company's future.
Yes, but states with merely unsafe driving laws look at the behavior of the vehicle more than anything else. Until you cross over that double-yellow line, there's not much they can do.
Because it wouldn't be a corporation, it would be a partnership. And partners are financially liable for a failed business venture in a way that stockholders are not.
Got take a Business 101 class before you start spouting off about things you obviously know nothing of.
After reading through the decision and the relevant law, I feel confident in stating that the 3rd Circuit did not just "invent" a right to personal privacy for corporations: it appears that right is codified in law, at least as regards the Freedom of Information Act. This is not a big deal, since all that means is that Federal agencies can't publish private data about corporations, which they don't really need to do perform their regulatory functions.
The real question is, what is private about a publicly traded company? Sensitive personal information is normally limited to things like birthdates, Social Security numbers/Tax ID numbers, mother's maiden name, and other identifying bits of information. In this case, it would be proper for the TIN of a corporation to be kept private, since someone could use that to take out credit in the name of the corporation, just like ID theft of individuals. Any other information that can be used in that way should also be protected. Whether the data that AT&T was trying to protect counts as protected remains to be seen, the FCC will still have to rule on that.
Disclosure: I work for AT&T, though not in any department or division relevant to this case.
So you're suggesting we jettison several centuries worth of law, change entire volumes of published legal precedent and laws, so we can basically the same situation we already do? What would we gain from that?
The problem isn't that corporations are considered "persons" in some already narrow definitions, it's that a particularly poorly written law granted personal protection to a corporation when none may not be needed (I haven't looked too closely at this law, this may all be much ado about nothing).
Not to mention to shield investors from losing everything they own if the corporation fails ("corporate veil"). Without that proviso, our entire economic system would collapse (which I'll grant some people wouldn't have a problem with because they don't understand what life would be like then).
What? Texting and driving isn't already illegal in the USA? It's illegal in the UK, and quite right too.
It's absurd to compare the USA to the UK in this type of situation. It's much more accurate to compare our national government to the EU. Under our Federal system of government, most laws like this are supposed to be handled by individual states, not the central government. That doesn't mean that Congress won't pass some stupid law, only that they shouldn't bother getting involved in minutiae.
There's an argument to be made that since the Federal government pays for much of the maintenance on the interstate highway system and regulates it under the Commerce Clause, that they could ban texting while driving on an interstate or US highway; they could also withhold highway funds from states that allow that behavior (that's how we ended up with a national drinking age). But they can't pass a law saying that you can't drive on state or private property while texting, that would be a violation of each state's sovereignty and the 10th Amendment to our Constitution. (Yes, I know this is splitting hairs since it all accomplishes the same thing, but these are important hairs to keep intact.)
Actually, it turns out that's not the case. I thought it was too, until a recent Slashdot discussion where someone corrected me. I've since done a little more research and found this chart published by the AAA: http://www.aaapublicaffairs.com/Assets/Files/20099111616410.DistractedDrivingLaws.doc (warning: Word doc, not HTML or PDF for some reason).
Only four states ban "distracted driving", and various other combinations of states ban texting, talking on a phone, or other specific actions. There are only two states (Ohio and Wisconsin) that don't ban any of these behaviors. As for the rest, it's a hodgepodge of restrictions. It's worth checking out the link to make sure you know what your state does, and does not, ban.
If one party is found, at the end, to have wasted the other party's time in court with needless hearings and motions, the first party can get attorney's fees. I won almost $6000 in fees against my ex-wife because of her shenanigans in an on-going custody fight (not that I think I'll ever see a dime of that money, of course, just because someone owes you money doesn't mean you can actually collect it).
But what kind of lawyer would take on a borderline frivolous case filed by a man disbarred for bad practice including, but not limited to, the malicious use of frivolous lawsuits?
One who isn't afraid of the occasional 11b sanction.
Yes, we do have those laws already. Every state in the Union has one, there's no need for a Federal crackdown. Careless driving has nothing to do with interstate commerce or any other area of the Federal government's responsibility. Color me shocked that Obama* and his team still feel the need to poke their noses into this issue, though.
Slashdot Mirror
she had embezzled about 5 grand (mid 90's dollars)
Jesus, that's like $50 grand today!
If that number were anywhere close to accurate, we would have massive amounts of starvation across the globe, considering the current population is more than 12,000 times the number you provided for the theoretical max population.
My wife uses a Polar heart rate monitor (http://www.polarusa.com, I forget which model). All of the data is stored in CSV files for easy import into spreadsheets and databases.
Would've been nice if you had mentioned that earlier. Most of the informed discussion about whether or not their activity was legal or not focused on laws in the US, which mean jackall to a site in the UK. In the future, please provide a little more information in your summary so that people can actually help answer your question instead of running off on tangents that have no help of giving any assistance whatsoever.
Nah, if dwarfs had built it they would've used gromril.
If the email in question is about a multi-million dollar business deal, then I guarantee you they have a right to have their email read. Suggesting otherwise is a good way to torpedo your company's future.
Yes, but states with merely unsafe driving laws look at the behavior of the vehicle more than anything else. Until you cross over that double-yellow line, there's not much they can do.
Because it wouldn't be a corporation, it would be a partnership. And partners are financially liable for a failed business venture in a way that stockholders are not.
Got take a Business 101 class before you start spouting off about things you obviously know nothing of.
After reading through the decision and the relevant law, I feel confident in stating that the 3rd Circuit did not just "invent" a right to personal privacy for corporations: it appears that right is codified in law, at least as regards the Freedom of Information Act. This is not a big deal, since all that means is that Federal agencies can't publish private data about corporations, which they don't really need to do perform their regulatory functions.
The real question is, what is private about a publicly traded company? Sensitive personal information is normally limited to things like birthdates, Social Security numbers/Tax ID numbers, mother's maiden name, and other identifying bits of information. In this case, it would be proper for the TIN of a corporation to be kept private, since someone could use that to take out credit in the name of the corporation, just like ID theft of individuals. Any other information that can be used in that way should also be protected. Whether the data that AT&T was trying to protect counts as protected remains to be seen, the FCC will still have to rule on that.
Disclosure: I work for AT&T, though not in any department or division relevant to this case.
So you're suggesting we jettison several centuries worth of law, change entire volumes of published legal precedent and laws, so we can basically the same situation we already do? What would we gain from that?
The problem isn't that corporations are considered "persons" in some already narrow definitions, it's that a particularly poorly written law granted personal protection to a corporation when none may not be needed (I haven't looked too closely at this law, this may all be much ado about nothing).
Not to mention to shield investors from losing everything they own if the corporation fails ("corporate veil"). Without that proviso, our entire economic system would collapse (which I'll grant some people wouldn't have a problem with because they don't understand what life would be like then).
What? Texting and driving isn't already illegal in the USA? It's illegal in the UK, and quite right too.
It's absurd to compare the USA to the UK in this type of situation. It's much more accurate to compare our national government to the EU. Under our Federal system of government, most laws like this are supposed to be handled by individual states, not the central government. That doesn't mean that Congress won't pass some stupid law, only that they shouldn't bother getting involved in minutiae.
There's an argument to be made that since the Federal government pays for much of the maintenance on the interstate highway system and regulates it under the Commerce Clause, that they could ban texting while driving on an interstate or US highway; they could also withhold highway funds from states that allow that behavior (that's how we ended up with a national drinking age). But they can't pass a law saying that you can't drive on state or private property while texting, that would be a violation of each state's sovereignty and the 10th Amendment to our Constitution. (Yes, I know this is splitting hairs since it all accomplishes the same thing, but these are important hairs to keep intact.)
Actually, it turns out that's not the case. I thought it was too, until a recent Slashdot discussion where someone corrected me. I've since done a little more research and found this chart published by the AAA: http://www.aaapublicaffairs.com/Assets/Files/20099111616410.DistractedDrivingLaws.doc (warning: Word doc, not HTML or PDF for some reason).
Only four states ban "distracted driving", and various other combinations of states ban texting, talking on a phone, or other specific actions. There are only two states (Ohio and Wisconsin) that don't ban any of these behaviors. As for the rest, it's a hodgepodge of restrictions. It's worth checking out the link to make sure you know what your state does, and does not, ban.
Hey, when you lose two wars to a nation, then have that same nation bail you out of two more wars, there are going to be repercussions.
Hey, you bought some condoms yesterday - Need an escort?
If one party is found, at the end, to have wasted the other party's time in court with needless hearings and motions, the first party can get attorney's fees. I won almost $6000 in fees against my ex-wife because of her shenanigans in an on-going custody fight (not that I think I'll ever see a dime of that money, of course, just because someone owes you money doesn't mean you can actually collect it).
But what kind of lawyer would take on a borderline frivolous case filed by a man disbarred for bad practice including, but not limited to, the malicious use of frivolous lawsuits?
One who isn't afraid of the occasional 11b sanction.
Yes, we do have those laws already. Every state in the Union has one, there's no need for a Federal crackdown. Careless driving has nothing to do with interstate commerce or any other area of the Federal government's responsibility. Color me shocked that Obama* and his team still feel the need to poke their noses into this issue, though.
It's already illegal in several states, with more debating the laws. This isn't a Federal issue, so why are they even wasting time talking about it?
Does he run Linux?
You should really learn how to read poetry.
Sounds like Lady Gaga's nerdy sister.
The made $1.3 billion in sales last year. In what way is that not a "success"?
That sounds like it came from a clueful CEO. Most of the ones I've met would respond with "Google? I use them all the time, let's do it."
Jeez, that's depressing. I don't know if I could handle reading your long answer, I might be driven to slit my wrists.