I supported Tesla's position on disintermediating the US car dealer structure so that Tesla can be allowed to sell cars directly to consumers. I didn't realize they would try abusing antitrust regs elsewhere for their own benefit. Companies are against anti-trust behavior except their own.
* Why didn't we accept Microsoft's $45B offer in 2008
* Whose erection lead to the hiring of Marissa Mayer?
* What will we do when Verizon cancels its acquisition agreement?
Yes, I think the USA is better. The Federal bribery laws in this country are some of the most stringently enforced laws on the books and carry enormous penalties.
"A study that was conducted recently by Branding Brand revealed that 40 percent of Samsung customers who ordered a Note 7 are ready to jump ship to a different manufacturer, with 30 percent of respondents explaining that the iPhone is very likely to be their next destination. Only 8 percent of them picked the Google Pixel, but what's good for the ecosystem is that 62 percent of the users said they wanted to stick with Android."
These IT workers have enjoyed the benefits of a global workforce, specifically lower prices for the everyday products manufactured and imported from lower-wage nations and sold in retailers like Walmart. If these workers protested such products then good on them. If not then they're hypocrites.
Well the thrust of the article is that it accuses Samsung of hiding this battery event from the media. Yet that's exactly what this guy did by posing a threat to Samsung first. Why wouldn't he just go to the media to share what happened if his interest was really public safety? Sharing what happened wouldn't have precluded him from suing Samsung as well. So it's clear the guys' intentions are suspect here.
The full Samsung text message was "Just now got this. I can try and slow him down if we think it will matter, or we just let him do what he keeps threatening to do and see if he does it"
Someone Mr. Klering conveniently failed to share with the news station what exactly he was threatening to do against Samsung that lead to that text message exchange between Samsung employees and which accidentally reached him instead. I'm guessing it was something more than just "I'm going to share what happened to my phone with the authorities".
And start a new company that combines their core strengths of incompetency, fraud, and perpetual social injustice. They can name the company "Loss Carry Forward, Inc."
I understand how sensitive authorities will be to any battery issue on the Note 7 post-recall, but nearly every Li-Ion phone model has had these kinds of thermal runaway events, including the iPhone. It's premature to start talking about a second recall before the investigation on the Southwest Airlines event has even started in earnest.
Misrepresentation
If fraud or misrepresentation occurred during the negotiation process, any resulting contract will probably be held unenforceable. The idea here is to encourage honest, good faith bargaining and transactions. Misrepresentations commonly occur when a party says something false (telling a potential buyer that a house is termite-free when it is not) or, in some other way, conceals or misrepresents a state of affairs (concealing evidence of structural damage in a house's foundation with paint or a particular placement of furniture).
Nondisclosure
Nondisclosure is essentially misrepresentation through silence -- when someone neglects to disclose an important fact about the deal. Courts look at various issues to decide whether a party had a duty to disclose the information, but courts will also consider whether the other party could or should have easily been able to access the same information. It should be noted that parties have a duty to disclose only material facts. But if Party A specifically asks Party B about a fact (material or non-material), then Party B has a duty to disclose the truth.
Slashdot Mirror
I supported Tesla's position on disintermediating the US car dealer structure so that Tesla can be allowed to sell cars directly to consumers. I didn't realize they would try abusing antitrust regs elsewhere for their own benefit. Companies are against anti-trust behavior except their own.
* Why didn't we accept Microsoft's $45B offer in 2008
* Whose erection lead to the hiring of Marissa Mayer?
* What will we do when Verizon cancels its acquisition agreement?
Yes, I think the USA is better. The Federal bribery laws in this country are some of the most stringently enforced laws on the books and carry enormous penalties.
Their data policy is right there in their name: T-Mobile, ie Throttling-Mobile.
Their entire economy runs on the stuff.
From the aritcle:
"A study that was conducted recently by Branding Brand revealed that 40 percent of Samsung customers who ordered a Note 7 are ready to jump ship to a different manufacturer, with 30 percent of respondents explaining that the iPhone is very likely to be their next destination. Only 8 percent of them picked the Google Pixel, but what's good for the ecosystem is that 62 percent of the users said they wanted to stick with Android."
Someone has to turn off the lights when the whole thing closes down :)
*** Internet Company For Sale ****
Price with CEO: $4.8 Billion
Price without CEO: $8.8 Billion
Otherwise you'll be sneezing your way to a lot of unwanted purchases / payments.
These IT workers have enjoyed the benefits of a global workforce, specifically lower prices for the everyday products manufactured and imported from lower-wage nations and sold in retailers like Walmart. If these workers protested such products then good on them. If not then they're hypocrites.
He can destroy their nuclear weapon program fast than Stuxnet.
Here are some other cutting-edge email features currently under development at Yahoo:
* WYSIWYG display of text
* Mouse Support
* Select multiple emails to delete
* CC: feature (in beta)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Turns out it was a self caricature.
Well the thrust of the article is that it accuses Samsung of hiding this battery event from the media. Yet that's exactly what this guy did by posing a threat to Samsung first. Why wouldn't he just go to the media to share what happened if his interest was really public safety? Sharing what happened wouldn't have precluded him from suing Samsung as well. So it's clear the guys' intentions are suspect here.
The full Samsung text message was "Just now got this. I can try and slow him down if we think it will matter, or we just let him do what he keeps threatening to do and see if he does it"
Someone Mr. Klering conveniently failed to share with the news station what exactly he was threatening to do against Samsung that lead to that text message exchange between Samsung employees and which accidentally reached him instead. I'm guessing it was something more than just "I'm going to share what happened to my phone with the authorities".
The latter being an off-brand supplier of cheap flatscreen TVs. Sharp might want to rethink their name/branding for this technology.
I wonder what the timeline is between when the NSA-instructed "buggy rootkit" scanner was installed vs when the 500m - 1b accounts were hacked.
And start a new company that combines their core strengths of incompetency, fraud, and perpetual social injustice. They can name the company "Loss Carry Forward, Inc."
Because if they were fair they would have lead to her own termination.
I understand how sensitive authorities will be to any battery issue on the Note 7 post-recall, but nearly every Li-Ion phone model has had these kinds of thermal runaway events, including the iPhone. It's premature to start talking about a second recall before the investigation on the Southwest Airlines event has even started in earnest.
I wonder if it gets included in our GDP figures.
Doesn't look like Marissa and term understand the concept of material disclosure in contract law.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...
Excerpt:
Misrepresentation
If fraud or misrepresentation occurred during the negotiation process, any resulting contract will probably be held unenforceable. The idea here is to encourage honest, good faith bargaining and transactions. Misrepresentations commonly occur when a party says something false (telling a potential buyer that a house is termite-free when it is not) or, in some other way, conceals or misrepresents a state of affairs (concealing evidence of structural damage in a house's foundation with paint or a particular placement of furniture).
Nondisclosure
Nondisclosure is essentially misrepresentation through silence -- when someone neglects to disclose an important fact about the deal. Courts look at various issues to decide whether a party had a duty to disclose the information, but courts will also consider whether the other party could or should have easily been able to access the same information. It should be noted that parties have a duty to disclose only material facts. But if Party A specifically asks Party B about a fact (material or non-material), then Party B has a duty to disclose the truth.
A more extensive discussion of the topic:
http://scholarship.law.berkele...
So that people without it wont bother trying to use the service.
It's called "being dashed".