Following up my own post, here is an even more recent opinion from Oklahoma involving a couple of electronics technicians "on call." They had better luck than the EMTs. The most significant fact seems to be how frequent the calls are.
(Incidentally, I should also say that the questioner's state may have state wage-and-hour laws that are more generous than the federal laws. Whether this is so naturally depends on the state.)
In the USA, the Fair Labor Standards Act requires (1) that hourly workers be paid for hours worked and (2) that they be paid overtime for hours worked in excess of 40. The obvious question is how "on call" time fits into this system.
The Department of Labor's FLSA regulations, particularly this one, suggest that "on call" time doesn't count as work time for purposes of the FLSA. (If the employee is actually called, however, that would seem to be different -- see this regulation.)
This recent opinion from Wisconsin involving EMTs "on call" discusses a very close case, and is interesting.
I believe the parents were sued, and there was a substantial cash settlement, paid off by the parents' homeowners' policies. (Frankly, this doesn't make a great deal of sense to me either -- the shooters' parents may not have been perfect, but there's nothing that suggests they "should have known" Columbine would happen.)
Your abuse of Judge Kaplan is unwarranted. I also disagree with his decision, but your suggestion that he is corrupt and ran a "show trial" is utterly unfounded. In particular, the contention that Kaplan couldn't be fair because a different lawyer at the law firm he left several years ago represented one party in a tangentially related matter is nothing more than conspiracy-mongering.
(Also, the notion that Kaplan had contempt for the defendants is a little odd: Kaplan's description of the defendants was more or less of a restatment of the labels they had given themselves. You can't style yourself a leader of the radical underground hacker movement and then complain that people think you're some kind of radical underground hacker. I read 2600 and I understand that there's a certain level of irony involved, but it's not obvious to everyone.)
The retailers order and buy from the manufacturers in SE Asia. While (the few remaining) American textile manufacturers may have an interest in having clothing made from cotton rather than hemp, there is no reason why American clothing retailers should care whether the clothing is made from hemp.
The ultrapowerful textiles industry is also why you never see clothes made in China, Hong Kong, Singapore in Thailand, and why Lowell, Massachusetts has been the richest city in America for the last 200 years.
Unless you're applying for a loan (or, for that matter, any kind of service which constitutes credit, which includes such things as cell phone service on the pay-by-month plan) or for insurance, in which case you also go to jail if you lie to a corporation, usually for longer than if you lie to the government. Oh, and you also won't get the free keychain.
(Here is the stock libertarian reply to save someone the trouble: "Yes, that's why I have no credit cards; I live on the farm I inherited and I only eat the turnips I grow myself, and I perform all medical procedures I need by myself on myself with a red-hot poker and rubbing alcohol." Congratufuckinglations.)
Lawyers actually are supposed to report when they KNOW that their client has committed a crime
Incorrect. Under American legal ethics rules, lawyers don't have to report confessions. (Under the ethics rules in most American jurisdictions, a lawyer does a limited "duty to warn" when a client has told the lawyer that he intends to commit a crime involving serious bodily harm or damage to property (e.g., "I'm going to kill my ex-wife Friday," "I'm going to burn down the widget factory tonight"). But if the crime is already over, there's no duty to report the confession.)
Note, however, that a lawyer can't put a witness on the stand who the lawyer knows will commit perjury. So if a client confesses to a lawyer, the lawyer can't put the client up on the stand to say "I didn't do it," though that doesn't mean the lawyer can't plead "not guilty" on the client's behalf.
There is an exception to the attorney-client privilege called the "crime-fraud exception" which means that if a client uses his lawyer's services to commit a crime -- e.g., to commit a fraud, to pass a bad check to his creditors -- he has no privilege. But there's got to be some upfront showing that the client did in fact do that before a court will compel the client's attorney to testify.
Use your brain, if someone definitively addressed energy concerns, and created something which would save trillions, then oil companies, utilco's would take a huge hit. Its reminiscent of the chemical companies lying once upon a time, the tobacco industries lies, etc.
There are lots of examples of this phenomenon:
1950s: Electronic "calculators" are invented; the invention is squashed by the pencil and paper industry.
1960s: "Tang," an inexpensive artificial orange-flavored breakfast drink is invented; the citrus industry keeps the invention a secret.
1970s: Computer scientists develop a protocol for connecting computers for exchange of information; the post office and Ma Bell join forces to strangle this so-called "Internet" in its cradle.
Indeed, most readers are probably mystified by the previous post's reference to the tobacco industry. It turns out that smoking tobacco doesn't ease breathing and prevent colds; in fact, it can cause some nasty diseases. But because the tobacco industry put the kibosh on all that research, none of you knew that.
Remember, kids, there's no such thing as "pseudoscience": big corporations only want you to think that. In my next post I will explain how big corporations really don't need to use animal testing but continue to do it because they hate fluffy bunnies.
Re:A lesson in collaborative science
on
Excess Heat
·
· Score: 1
Relativistic mechanics, in order to trump Newton, had to provide a substantial body of evidence proving that Newtonian was insufficient.
IIRC, there was a substantial body of evidence suggesting that Newtonian mechanics was insufficient -- most significantly the Michelson-Morley experiment -- which relativistic mechanics was subsequently introduced to explain. (Different experiments were subsequently performed to test RM.)
(This erratum doesn't mean I disagree with the substance of the foregoing -- if anything the correction supports the points jnik makes.)
In fact, what Nietzsche had to say was so fashionable, he died wealthy and surrounded by his family on a bed covered each day in fresh rose petals. In this universe, however, things went somewhat differently.
If you have a mortgage, then you hold title to the property subject to a mortgage, and you'd be listed as owner at the registry of deeds. (On a separate document at the registry, you'd be listed as mortgagor of the property and the bank would be listed as mortgagee.)
This begs the question, i.e., whether the website was legitimate protest or part of organized criminal activity. There's nothing in RICO that says it can't be used against violent political extremists as well as against narcotics traffickers or what have you. If you think the website was part of organized political violence, RICO should apply. If you think the website is legitimate political protest, it shouldn't.
To play devil's advocate: how do you know the theatergoers ran in panic because the person yelled "Fire!" Perhaps they acted spontaneously, and it was just a coincidence that the person yelled. You're not in their heads; you can't really know why they did what they did.
(The point being: How is the proof offered in the theater case qualitatively different from the proof in the website case? In each case a jury is being asked to draw inferences about the relationship between one person's speech and another's action. If the totality of the evidence convices a jury that there is a relationship, why not impose liability?)
I should be able to conspire all I want so long as I don't act on it.
One of the elements of conspiracy is an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Merely planning a crime is not conspiracy, though it doesn't take much to constitute an overt act. (For example, telling a thief when the security guards at the diamond shop take their break is almost surely an overt act.)
Slashdot Mirror
Not that it's so useful now.
(Incidentally, I should also say that the questioner's state may have state wage-and-hour laws that are more generous than the federal laws. Whether this is so naturally depends on the state.)
In the USA, the Fair Labor Standards Act requires (1) that hourly workers be paid for hours worked and (2) that they be paid overtime for hours worked in excess of 40. The obvious question is how "on call" time fits into this system.
The Department of Labor's FLSA regulations, particularly this one, suggest that "on call" time doesn't count as work time for purposes of the FLSA. (If the employee is actually called, however, that would seem to be different -- see this regulation.)
This recent opinion from Wisconsin involving EMTs "on call" discusses a very close case, and is interesting.
I believe the parents were sued, and there was a substantial cash settlement, paid off by the parents' homeowners' policies. (Frankly, this doesn't make a great deal of sense to me either -- the shooters' parents may not have been perfect, but there's nothing that suggests they "should have known" Columbine would happen.)
(Also, the notion that Kaplan had contempt for the defendants is a little odd: Kaplan's description of the defendants was more or less of a restatment of the labels they had given themselves. You can't style yourself a leader of the radical underground hacker movement and then complain that people think you're some kind of radical underground hacker. I read 2600 and I understand that there's a certain level of irony involved, but it's not obvious to everyone.)
Actually, it was just reported here. The judge was in Seattle. Does anyone know anything about him (previous career, who appointed him, etc.)?
The retailers order and buy from the manufacturers in SE Asia. While (the few remaining) American textile manufacturers may have an interest in having clothing made from cotton rather than hemp, there is no reason why American clothing retailers should care whether the clothing is made from hemp.
The Bureau has far too much information regarding this individual. The SA reviewing this file reported profound nausea after completing his review.
And if you need housing, just find a landlord or mortgage bank who won't insist on a credit check. Or live under a bridge.
That constitutes, to be sure, a novel use of the terms "search" and "seizure."
(Ouch. Brain freeze from excess of sarcasm.)
(Here is the stock libertarian reply to save someone the trouble: "Yes, that's why I have no credit cards; I live on the farm I inherited and I only eat the turnips I grow myself, and I perform all medical procedures I need by myself on myself with a red-hot poker and rubbing alcohol." Congratufuckinglations.)
Hear here. Microsoft is a solid company, like Burroughs, Sperry, Univac and Wang. It's not going anywhere.
Incorrect. Under American legal ethics rules, lawyers don't have to report confessions. (Under the ethics rules in most American jurisdictions, a lawyer does a limited "duty to warn" when a client has told the lawyer that he intends to commit a crime involving serious bodily harm or damage to property (e.g., "I'm going to kill my ex-wife Friday," "I'm going to burn down the widget factory tonight"). But if the crime is already over, there's no duty to report the confession.)
Note, however, that a lawyer can't put a witness on the stand who the lawyer knows will commit perjury. So if a client confesses to a lawyer, the lawyer can't put the client up on the stand to say "I didn't do it," though that doesn't mean the lawyer can't plead "not guilty" on the client's behalf.
There is an exception to the attorney-client privilege called the "crime-fraud exception" which means that if a client uses his lawyer's services to commit a crime -- e.g., to commit a fraud, to pass a bad check to his creditors -- he has no privilege. But there's got to be some upfront showing that the client did in fact do that before a court will compel the client's attorney to testify.
There are lots of examples of this phenomenon:
- 1950s: Electronic "calculators" are invented; the invention is squashed by the pencil and paper industry.
- 1960s: "Tang," an inexpensive artificial orange-flavored breakfast drink is invented; the citrus industry keeps the invention a secret.
- 1970s: Computer scientists develop a protocol for connecting computers for exchange of information; the post office and Ma Bell join forces to strangle this so-called "Internet" in its cradle.
Indeed, most readers are probably mystified by the previous post's reference to the tobacco industry. It turns out that smoking tobacco doesn't ease breathing and prevent colds; in fact, it can cause some nasty diseases. But because the tobacco industry put the kibosh on all that research, none of you knew that.Remember, kids, there's no such thing as "pseudoscience": big corporations only want you to think that. In my next post I will explain how big corporations really don't need to use animal testing but continue to do it because they hate fluffy bunnies.
IIRC, there was a substantial body of evidence suggesting that Newtonian mechanics was insufficient -- most significantly the Michelson-Morley experiment -- which relativistic mechanics was subsequently introduced to explain. (Different experiments were subsequently performed to test RM.)
(This erratum doesn't mean I disagree with the substance of the foregoing -- if anything the correction supports the points jnik makes.)
In any event, it's a search, not a criminal conviction. You don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt; you just need reasonable cause to search.
There's no longer a limitation on the physical ownership of gold in the United States.
I don't mean to question your sincerity about wanting to avoid snickering, Mr. Spooge Demon, but ...
Let's all try to be mature about this.
In fact, what Nietzsche had to say was so fashionable, he died wealthy and surrounded by his family on a bed covered each day in fresh rose petals. In this universe, however, things went somewhat differently.
If you have a mortgage, then you hold title to the property subject to a mortgage, and you'd be listed as owner at the registry of deeds. (On a separate document at the registry, you'd be listed as mortgagor of the property and the bank would be listed as mortgagee.)
This begs the question, i.e., whether the website was legitimate protest or part of organized criminal activity. There's nothing in RICO that says it can't be used against violent political extremists as well as against narcotics traffickers or what have you. If you think the website was part of organized political violence, RICO should apply. If you think the website is legitimate political protest, it shouldn't.
(The point being: How is the proof offered in the theater case qualitatively different from the proof in the website case? In each case a jury is being asked to draw inferences about the relationship between one person's speech and another's action. If the totality of the evidence convices a jury that there is a relationship, why not impose liability?)
One of the elements of conspiracy is an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Merely planning a crime is not conspiracy, though it doesn't take much to constitute an overt act. (For example, telling a thief when the security guards at the diamond shop take their break is almost surely an overt act.)