But there's probably a lot that's missing. I find it hard to believe the average pre-bloated-web-page "document" is over 50k. That's a LOT of plain-text.
by making sure 99% of it's installations are implementing it for a purpose it's just not well suited for
How is that Adobe's fault? Oh, that's right, when you bought FrontPage your license said you would only make tasteful web sites without scrolling marquees and other ugliness. Oops, no, what it actually said was that you agree not to badmouth Microsoft. Bad me.
People want it. Including everyone who bought an iPad. That's why there are sites that are converting on-the-fly. Funny that the biggest use right now of "cloud computing" for most Apple consumers is getting past Apple's attempts at lock-out.
Why can't Adobe understand?
Why can't Apple understand? There, fixed it for you.
It's a patent on video compression. US patent 7,292,636. It might be "only one" - but you can't have an h264-compatible codec without video compression. After all, codec stands for COmpressor-DECompressor.
I'd like to know how you can make it cost a billion dollars to build a database, which is essentially what the gun registry is.
History repeats itself. Ontario is having the same problem with costs exploding in the medical records area. Another couple billion blown. Feather-bedding, pork-barrels, you know how that works.
A $30 million untendered contract to IBM approved by cabinet ministers on the government's management board.
Unnamed senior health bureaucrats for thwarting his efforts to get investigators into eHealth for a routine audit in the summer of 2008. McCarter's staff did not gain the desired access until last February - just a few months before Health Minister David Caplan ordered a special audit once the eHealth spending scandal erupted.
Unnamed consulting companies for driving up each other's fees, artificially creating a higher going rate for their services.
Too much power in too few hands in awarding of contracts, which did not get enough oversight from top officials in the health ministry.
The $647 million spent, with little to show for it, by SSHA, set up by former premier Mike Harris's Conservative government.
What one source called a "war" between SSHA and the health ministry over how to manage and accomplish a complicated endeavour like creating electronic health records.
Another insider privy to McCarter's findings said "the auditor really took everybody to task. It's a very bad report, it's not sugar-coated."
Consultants hired by eHealth were paid up to $3,000 a day and, meanwhile, billed for expenses like tea and cookies.
As well, lucrative contracts were granted without competitive bidding in a rush to get a system of records running as promised by 2014.
The usual corruption that happens when you create a large government program.
There's no problem with publishing rude, etc., opinions of congress-critters held by individual citizens. That's protected speech, and nowhere have I questioned it. To the contrary, I support it 100%. What I argue against is ANY form of political lobbying by any corporation in its own name, including endorsing any particular candidate. Corporations can't vote, and don't have opinions any more than they have blue eyes or green eyes or brown eyes or white skin or black skin. As such, they don't have the right to "endorse" a political candidate any more than my non-existent cat does.
Instead of 10 different media outlets saying they all endorse "X" and making it look like there's some sort of momentum going, this makes it transparent that "Rupert Murdoch endorses X".
Or is transparency a bad thing? Is truth now a bad thing? Are we going to have a "Pontius Plate moment" - "what is truth?"
It's really simple. Political rights begin and end with citizens. Corporations don't have political rights.
You can come to the United States as a Canadian and exercise all the same rights that I can.
Absolutely not true. I can't vote in your elections, and if I'm involved in a public protest I'm likely to be deported (I've talked to people who've been there, done that). The Supremes ruled that it's okay to deport aliens for conduct that would be protected speech by citizeins. I also can't work there unless I (or the person who hires me) can show that nobody else can do the job (I've worked in the US - had to declare that was why I was going down there to US Customs, etc).
Running for and holding public office? Certainly those are free speech issues, but again, no candy. Even with a right to work visa, public office and many public jobs are off limits. Also, certain states have additional restrictions on, for example, ownership of property by aliens. Home owners associations also place restrictions on what aliens can do with property they purchase.
It's simply not that simple...
The right of revolution would allow them to do exactly that, provided they can back it up with enough firepower.
Interesting theory. Then again, the point is moot. If you looked like you were going to get any real backing, you'd end up dead. Besides, what is the likelihood that you can get more than a few people in any individual state to vote to secede. Though that will change after California and a few other states default.
BTW: Nobody is talking about taking away anyone's right to assemble with like-minded people, but of forming corporations to do your "assembling" and "talking" for you. Corporations are a legal fiction. They shouldn't have the right to make campaign contributions. Let the individuals do it, as is their right.
... or we could end the arbitrary monopoly that lawyers have on practicing law (seems to me that lawyers don't need the equivalent of an antitrust exemption so much as a mass enema).
Most people go to a lawyer because they need one NOW! They're at a vulnerable time. They're scared. There's no real competition (only lawyers can practice law). Screw that. Read the biographies of lawyers and they'll admit that what they learned in law school was useless from day 1 in court.
It's not like the bar association will get you any money back from a crappy lawyer that they discipline - that's not their job.
NASA's latest multimillion-dollar stratosphere-bound balloon launch has gone horribly wrong and crashed into a car,
... that's just what they want you to think...
In other news, the White House announced that President Obama has determined to end NASAs dependence on new-fangled technology like balloons, and that they will instead be funding research into the next generation of proven technologies - ballistas and confirmed the existence of the here-to-fore rumoured Project SlingShot.
"With advancements in synthetic materials, we really believe that Project SlingShot has a chance to leapfrog ahead of the timetable we had in place with Project LeapFrog."
I'm glad you like it up here. I like it when I visit the states - as long as I avoid the big cities. Small-town folk are just plain nice. The cities, though... not so friendly. Funny, when you consider that I live in what would be considered a large city.
The real beef with the gun registry up here was that what was supposed to be a $10 million program ($20 million bucks tops, honest!) ended up being a billion dollar boondoggle. Throwing a billion dollars down the drain tends to get everyone's panties in a twist, and for good reason. The proper way to do it would have been for the individual provinces that wanted it to implement it, work out the kinks, and then see if, at the usual first ministers get-together, it couldn't be made, on the cheap, into a working national registry. Instead, it became a political pork project with "good optics" in the provinces that they needed to keep votes.
Then again, since the courts have ruled that any province is free to secede from the country by simple vote, there's more tendency to talk things out.
The rural/urban split also plays out in individual provinces, where you have "the regions" (aka the boonies) complaining about the cities. Part of the problem, inter-provincially, is that nobody wants to give up any power. The Atlantic provinces are going to continue to see their influence diminish if they don't unite into one province. It's one way to at least partially offset the declines in population. But of course that won't happen...
The people are free to express their opinions individually or through political parties. Corporations aren't people. Muzzling corporations doesn't muzzle the individual people. I don't think that McDonalds or Google or any other corporate body should be entitled to try to influence the political process. They're not citizens. They should be treated the same as foreign nationals.
The people still have the right to assemble. What they don't have the right to do is form a corporation to advance, in their name, a specific agenda. They can advance that agenda perfectly well out in the open, outside the legal fiction of a corporation.
Carry your thought to the extreme - why can't citizens, under the US constitution, form a NATION to lobby for their interests? That's certainly freedom of assembly. "Don't like your current state and federal government - join JeebusLand! We're a new country inside the U S of A. Exercise your freedom of association and freedom of expression today - secede NOW!"
Somehow, it's okay to violate both freedoms when it comes to secession - and yet the US was founded on secession, and as was pointed out at the time - "Either we all hang together, or surely we will all hang separately" - because it was illegal even then.
So yes, I'm quite comfy with the idea of banning all corporate political activity, including lobbying. It tends to drown out the voices of the ordinary citizens.
Well, I'm glad it worked out in the end. But when it comes to lawyers, I'm singularly underwhelmed by the profession. What was the saying - they're not all bad apples, it's the 99% who spoil it for the rest of them? Maybe it's not that bad, but it's easily WAY over 50% are absolute trash.
... which is the real reason Apple wants to kill flash - it won't let Apple fully exploit their h264 patents via, among other things, html5 video codecs.
You now admit that the law doesn't require people to turn stuff over to the police immediately. That's a step in the right direction.
There is nothing in the statute that says you have to turn in property to the police AFTER you've contacted the owner. If the owner has been contacted, the property is no longer "missing" or "misplaced."
Additionally, the law clearly states that it only applies to items worth more than $100.
There are plenty of places that will sell you an iPhone knockoff for $25 - $50. This looked like an iPhone knockoff. Apple denied it even existed, which is MORE reason to believe it was just a knockoff.
As for buying a real iPhone for $99 (not $100) - my cell phone provider has the base 8-gig model for that price right now - not an "upgrade deal", btw. New subscribers get that deal. I want a better one, of course.
What Giz paid for it is irrelevant. By then the product was no longer misplaced - the owner (Apple) had been contacted and had basically said "go away." So a couple of weeks later, more snooping, and "hey - this might be worth something after all" has ZERO to do with what transpired BEFORE Apple said "get stuffed".
So, to recap:
find what looks like a knock-off phone
phone is bricked, so useless
call Apple
they say not interested
obligation to turn it in to anyone - no matter what its value - under that statute is now terminated; since it is no longer "misplaced" the statute doesn't apply
What Giz paid for it is irrelevant, since it was no longer misplaced, but abandoned, and the situation had changed - by then, there were a few rumours going around that there really was a g4 prototype out in the wild.
Kepp trying - eventually you'll see the light - that the statute doesn't apply, that common law does (item with apparent value under $100), and that he owned it free and clear once Apple said "get stuffed." Apple is responsible for their employees actions. Not him. Not Giz.
I'm just saying that my way is (1) cheaper (2) quicker (3) creates a public record that serves as a deterrent, and can be accessed by any future victims.
A private-practice lawyer isn't going to recommend using a publicly-available recourse that takes bread out of his own mouth. He's not going to say "Yes, I can sue him, but why don't you go to this publicly-funded commission instead and file a complaint for constructive dismissal and they will investigate it, and if it's justified they'll sue him at no cost to you?" (because quitting over sexual harassment is considered constructive dismissal).
That's the way it works here. Boss sexually harasses you, you document it, quit, and file the complaint. It's investigated, and if it's found to be valid, the parties either negotiate a settlement via the mediator, or the regulator sues on your behalf. And since a government agency has sharper teeth and claws than a lawyer working on contingency, people tend to behave.
If you don't have such a body in your jurisdiction, then perhaps its time to lobby for one? The same as all those states that have "at-will" firing practices, it's time to lobby them to change that. Montana did it - at the request of employers, who otherwise were facing the possibility of uncapped judgments.
You're going to have to come up with some way to put some controls on corporations vis. lobbying and campaign funding. Corporations aren't people. They don't have the rights of people, as simple as that. A law banning all corporate political contributions, whether in money or in kind, is needed. This doesn't abridge the individuals' freedom of speech - they are still free - as individuals, to say what they want. They simply wouldn't be free to form a corporation to say it in their place. Same as my dog can't exercise my rights in my place.
It's simple - if you have no right to vote, you don't get to participate in the political process as a citizen. Neither the corporation, nor the dog, can vote. Neither has rights as a citizen.
Corporations don't have political views. That's a reality. The people behind them do - so let them exercise their freedom of speech themselves, not through a corporate proxy. Same as they can vote themselves, but not through their corporate proxy.
Another difference between corporations and people - you can't throw a company in jail. You CAN throw the people behind it in jail, when those individuals can be shown to have committed crimes. But corporations? They cannot be jailed, since they are a legal fiction. They are not persons, and don't have the same rights or properties as citizens. The lowest citizen has more rights than the largest corporation - and we should be acting that way.
Then again, I live in a country where we have freedom of speech for individuals, but NOT for corporations, and we do have campaign finance laws in this province that are very strict. The sky didn't fall in - to the contrary, criticizing whoever's in power is a national pass-time. And since we're not competing with big campaign donors for the politicians' ear, we get heard more. Just a thought.
The press is free to report the news. However, notice the comma between "freedom of speech, or of the press". The press doesn't have unlimited freedom. You can't go around committing crimes and then say "I'm a member of the press so it' okay for ME to rob a bank because otherwise that would be a law restricting the freedom of the press." The press has one job - reporting news. The press is free to report news. The press is not free to, for example, defame people. They do not enjoy special "freedom of speech" - what they enjoy is "freedom to publish" - to put out the news, and governments can't order them shut down "just because."
That was the issue when the freedom of the press was being written into the first amendment - that government can't just say "stop the presses." The press has the right to publish the news. People have a right to voice opinions. The press doesn't have the same latitude to voice opinions under the constitution except where they are news. Saying that the NY Times editors endorse a candidate is not news - it belongs in the entertainment or op-ed pages.
No, it doesn't put food on the table, but that's the way life is sometimes.
You don't have kids, do you? You'll find it isn't nearly as easy to take these sorts of principled stands when others go hungry as a result of them.
Yes, I do. And the best way to teach kids that something is wrong is by doing. Better that they learn that principles are worth standing up for, and taking risks for, and that it's possible to stand up for your rights, and that it's the right thing to do, and that, no matter what, you WILL muddle through.
Otherwise, it becomes too easy to justify bending the rules, then outright criminal behaviour - "If I quit, then my kids might go hungry, so I had no choice, I had to continue to help Madoff."
The charges of racism are really starting to grate on me. What's racist about charging people for crimes committed? Would you think it racist if we had millions of illegal immigrants from Canada or Western Europe and tried to track them down?
The law is targeted at Mexicans. However, the truth is that if every illegal Mexican were rounded up tomorrow, Arizona would fall apart. They're essential to the economy. This law is not about "enforcing the law" - it's about keeping people of a specific skin colour "in their place."
If the white robe and hood are starting to feel a bit confining, maybe you should take them off?
If you're white, you or one of your forbearers were an illegal immigrant. There were other people here first, you know. The attempted geonocide of the native population via smallpox-contaminated blankets is a documented fact. That's not "fair dealing" under any law or convention. Which makes you an illegal, and certainly puts the lie to the "melting-pot" myth. Not that we believe it anyway. There are too many cases od DWB - driving while black - and the judicial system has a proven bias against non-whites. And that's before we get into the equal rights of lesbians, gays, and transpeople. Nope - no melting pot here unless you're an angry old white person.
The problem with illegal immigrants isn't going to go away because of this law. To the contrary, it's going to make it harder to deal with the problem, by making people on both sides more suspicious. Bush was on the right track when he proposed that there should be a path to legitimacy for illegals. This acknowledges that there are plenty of children of illegals who are nonetheless American citizens, born on American soil, and deporting their parents infringes on THEIR rights.
(mark this day on your calendar - I actually said something good about a Bush policy:-)
The first amendment applies to people. Companies are not people. Newspapers should stick to reporting, not endorsing.
If the boss is a creep who's trying to sexually harass you, you (1) say no, (2) get a job elsewhere, (3) file a complaint. No, it doesn't put food on the table, but that's the way life is sometimes.
There's a difference between "being propositioned at work" and what you originally claimed, that "Someone I know was terminated from her job for refusing to perform certain "services" for her boss". Which was it? And why didn't she (a) tell him to get stuffed, and (b) start looking for a job elsewhere?
In sexual harassment cases, it's important to do both. Just like in constructive dismissal cases, it's important to immediately (as in "on the spot") refuse the change in working conditions, or you are deemed to have accepted the change. Delay, even over the weekend, kills it. Refuse it, make your refusal known, and you can continue to work "under protest" while preserving your legal rights... or you can walk out immediately, and again preserve your legal rights. What you can't do is just shut up and do nothing. When it comes down to - literally - a case of "he said / she said", your reactions WILL be taken into consideration. Saying "I found it offensive but I didn't quit" is also saying "I didn't find it offensive enough to quit." It's called "putting your money where your mouth is" for a reason.
So back to the sexual harassment. Refuse, make it known, and start looking for another job. Sexual harassment IS a form of constructive dismissal.
You don't need a lawyer to tell you this, or to back up your rights - plenty of jurisdictions have regulators who do this for free. In those that don't, you STILL have to tell them to get lost and start looking elsewhere, or it can be argued that it wasn't "that unacceptable to you - after all, you didn't quit." Maybe it shouldn't be like that, but that's the reality of it. If something is that offensive, you HAVE to go on record immediately, and your subsequent actions HAVE to match. Quiting isn't an option - it's pretty much mandatory.
First, people suspected it was not legit. Even Apple disowned it.
Second, the law that YOU cited is clear - even if it was worth $100,000.00, there is no duty to turn it in to police immediately. The law acknowledges the validity of common law by stating that the finder keeps it for a reasonable amount of time (unlike what you tried to claim), and only turns it in if it's unclaimed, and only if it's clearly worth more than $100.00. Neither applies here (see the following).
Third, it was not at all clear it was a prototype of anything. It was in a 3g-like case, but wasn't a 3g, just like plenty of 3g knock-offs that you can pick up in bars for $25.00 to $50.00. It's only after opening it up (which the guy never did) that it was obvious that it wasn't a dead $50 knock-off.
Fourth, given that the phone in question was bricked, how do you get off comparing it to the price of an unbricked, never mind an unlocked, phone? That's one of the worst apple-oranges comparisons going. And I can get a brand new Apple iPhone for $99.00. Sure, it's the base model, but still, that's my price. The 16 gig is $199, and the 32 gig is $299. Not that I'd buy any of them.
Fifth, he didn't phone "some random number". He phoned the same number the cops would have phoned. So sad. Too bad.
Lets say I find your phone which happens to be a Blackberry. I phone up RIM and say, 'hey I found one of your phones, you want it back?' Do you really think they would give me the time of day or care about a phone?
Yes, they would. RIM isn't as complete an asshole as Apple. So would my carrier.
It had no apparent value. It appeared to be a cheap, dead knock-off. It was Apple's property, Apple was contacted, Apple abandoned it. Once it was abandoned, the guy could do whatever he wanted with it. So stop trying to justify it's when obvious you didn't know in the first place that Apple HAD been contacted and HAD abandoned it. In other words, stop being such a n Apple fanboi.
And no, Gizmo is not guilty of buying stolen property. Given Apple's public denial that the phone even existed, their refusal to acknowledge it when contacted, and that it looked like a knock-off, there's no case for "buying stolen property."
1. Because you start fixing things by starting at the top. A fish rots from the head.
2. Make it the same rule for everyone. No corporate endorsements. Period.
3. Many jurisdictions have sexual harassment in the workplace laws. If she lives in one of those, file a complaint. If she doesn't, then maybe it would be time to start agitating for such laws. Or she could have gone the cheaper route - record the harassment, give a copy to police as evidence for a charge of attempted sexual assault, post it on youtube and make money going on the talk show circuit. Bonus: No need for a "confidentiality" agreement (which is what ends up happening if the perp agrees to pay up).
McKEE -- The mother of a gay Jackson County teenager says an attack on her daughter by classmates was a hate crime, but a detective said he would not classify the incident that way.
Cheyenne Williams, 18, was attacked Friday because she is openly gay, said her mother, Dee Johnson.
"It is a hate crime," Johnson said.
State police Detective Joie Peters, who is investigating, said it appears the incident began as a practical joke but got out of hand, escalating to the point that Williams sustained minor injuries.
Peters said he was not minimizing the incident but has not uncovered evidence it constituted a hate crime.
The girls accused of attacking Williams are charged in district court with kidnapping and attempted murder, based on a criminal complaint Williams swore out.
Peters said he would present evidence to a grand jury for a decision on what charge correctly fits the facts of the case.
The grand jury could indict the girls on the same charges, a lesser charge such as assault or decline to indict them.
The investigation is ongoing, Peters said.
Those charged in the alleged attack -- who attended Jackson County High School with Williams -- are Ashley N. Sams, 18, of Annville; Corrine M. Schwab, 18 of Sandgap; and a 17-year-old girl. Her name and the charges against her have not been released because she is a juvenile.
Williams said the three teens took her against her will to Flat Lick Falls, physically abused her and tried to push her off a cliff.
Johnson said her daughter had the presence of mind to videotape the attack on her cell phone.
"There's proof on the video that this is a hate crime," Johnson said.
A hate crime is an offense motivated, in whole or in part, by bias based on race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or ethnicity/national origin, according to the FBI Web site.
The site notes that the presence of bias alone does not mean a crime can be considered a hate crime.
"Only when law enforcement investigation reveals sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the offender's actions were motivated, in whole or in part, by his or her bias, should an incident be reported as a hate crime," the Web site says.
Johnson declined to disclose details of the video or of the attack, saying police had told her not to discuss the case.
Williams brandished a stick at the girls and was able to get away.
The girls found her and forced her back into the car but then let her go, warning her not to say anything, said Corbin attorney Tim Crawford, who represents the school system.
Williams also retrieved her phone and has given police the video.
The girls charged in the attack had been friends with Williams for years and knew of her sexual orientation. One of the alleged attackers roomed with Williams on a senior trip to Key West, Fla., and the Bahamas three weeks ago, Crawford said.
Section 2080.1 Delivery to police or sheriff; affidavit; charges
If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the property,
In other words, there's nothing wrong with holding on to it and waiting for the rightful owner to claim it. There is NO duty to turn it over to the cops. To the contrary, just a few lines below, it says the exact opposite... it says "within a reasonable time". In other words, you turn it over to the owner of the establishment it was found in, under common law, and the owner has to, within a reasonable time, if it is still unclaimed, AND if it is worth more than $100, turn it over to the cops.
So, what's a used iPhone worth? I can get a new one for $99.00 So, what's a used one worth? Most people would say less than that. So again, common law applies, not your statute, which only applies to items with an apparent worth of $100 or more.
BTW - The guy contacted Apple. Apple blew him off. At that point it is no longer mislaid property - it is abandoned property. You abandon it, that's your problem. Or in this case, Apple's problem.
Property is generally deemed to have been mislaid or misplaced if it is found in a place where the true owner likely did intend to set it, but then simply forgot to pick it up again. For example, a wallet found in a shop lying on a counter near a cash register will likely be deemed misplaced rather than lost. Under common law principles, the finder of a misplaced object has a duty to turn it over to the owner of the premises, on the theory that the true owner is likely to return to that location to search for his misplaced item. If the true owner does not return within a reasonable time (which varies considerably depending on the circumstances), the property becomes that of the owner of the premises.
The last I heard, the US was a common-law jurisdiction. Unless a specific jurisdiction has over-ridden that common-law principle, common law applies. The phone was mislaid in a bar. Give it to the operator of the establishment, not the police. The police have better things to do with their time. It was not found on public property, and isn't their problem to deal with. If it had been found on the sidewalk or the public road, that would be a different story.
2. When you refuse the return of something, you have abandoned it. I find your dog. I try to return it to you. You refuse. You change your mind the next day - too bad , it's legally mine now. Doesn't matter if you had it micro-chopped and tattooed and registered and everything else. Abandoning something means just that - you've given up your rights to it.Nope, give it to the police. It does not belong to the owner of the establishment it was found in.
And as for your dog analogy, if you ask someone who doesn't own the dog if they want their dog back, and they say "no", it doesn't mean you can keep the dog. Doing a half-assed job of contacting the owner is not enough.
The guy who found the iPhone called APPLE - the OWNER. THEY blew the guy off. It's a matter of record. You and Apple are the only ones showing, as you call it, "half-assed" thinking processes.
Slashdot Mirror
But there's probably a lot that's missing. I find it hard to believe the average pre-bloated-web-page "document" is over 50k. That's a LOT of plain-text.
How is that Adobe's fault? Oh, that's right, when you bought FrontPage your license said you would only make tasteful web sites without scrolling marquees and other ugliness. Oops, no, what it actually said was that you agree not to badmouth Microsoft. Bad me.
People want it. Including everyone who bought an iPad. That's why there are sites that are converting on-the-fly. Funny that the biggest use right now of "cloud computing" for most Apple consumers is getting past Apple's attempts at lock-out.
Why can't Apple understand? There, fixed it for you.
And software implementations are required to include full DRM, including controls on the distribution of the software so that every sale is counted.
It's a patent on video compression. US patent 7,292,636. It might be "only one" - but you can't have an h264-compatible codec without video compression. After all, codec stands for COmpressor-DECompressor.
History repeats itself. Ontario is having the same problem with costs exploding in the medical records area. Another couple billion blown. Feather-bedding, pork-barrels, you know how that works.
The usual corruption that happens when you create a large government program.
Instead of 10 different media outlets saying they all endorse "X" and making it look like there's some sort of momentum going, this makes it transparent that "Rupert Murdoch endorses X".
Or is transparency a bad thing? Is truth now a bad thing? Are we going to have a "Pontius Plate moment" - "what is truth?"
It's really simple. Political rights begin and end with citizens. Corporations don't have political rights.
Absolutely not true. I can't vote in your elections, and if I'm involved in a public protest I'm likely to be deported (I've talked to people who've been there, done that). The Supremes ruled that it's okay to deport aliens for conduct that would be protected speech by citizeins. I also can't work there unless I (or the person who hires me) can show that nobody else can do the job (I've worked in the US - had to declare that was why I was going down there to US Customs, etc).
Running for and holding public office? Certainly those are free speech issues, but again, no candy. Even with a right to work visa, public office and many public jobs are off limits. Also, certain states have additional restrictions on, for example, ownership of property by aliens. Home owners associations also place restrictions on what aliens can do with property they purchase.
It's simply not that simple ...
Interesting theory. Then again, the point is moot. If you looked like you were going to get any real backing, you'd end up dead. Besides, what is the likelihood that you can get more than a few people in any individual state to vote to secede. Though that will change after California and a few other states default.
BTW: Nobody is talking about taking away anyone's right to assemble with like-minded people, but of forming corporations to do your "assembling" and "talking" for you. Corporations are a legal fiction. They shouldn't have the right to make campaign contributions. Let the individuals do it, as is their right.
... or we could end the arbitrary monopoly that lawyers have on practicing law (seems to me that lawyers don't need the equivalent of an antitrust exemption so much as a mass enema).
Most people go to a lawyer because they need one NOW! They're at a vulnerable time. They're scared. There's no real competition (only lawyers can practice law). Screw that. Read the biographies of lawyers and they'll admit that what they learned in law school was useless from day 1 in court.
It's not like the bar association will get you any money back from a crappy lawyer that they discipline - that's not their job.
In other news, the White House announced that President Obama has determined to end NASAs dependence on new-fangled technology like balloons, and that they will instead be funding research into the next generation of proven technologies - ballistas and confirmed the existence of the here-to-fore rumoured Project SlingShot.
"With advancements in synthetic materials, we really believe that Project SlingShot has a chance to leapfrog ahead of the timetable we had in place with Project LeapFrog."
I'm glad you like it up here. I like it when I visit the states - as long as I avoid the big cities. Small-town folk are just plain nice. The cities, though ... not so friendly. Funny, when you consider that I live in what would be considered a large city.
The real beef with the gun registry up here was that what was supposed to be a $10 million program ($20 million bucks tops, honest!) ended up being a billion dollar boondoggle. Throwing a billion dollars down the drain tends to get everyone's panties in a twist, and for good reason. The proper way to do it would have been for the individual provinces that wanted it to implement it, work out the kinks, and then see if, at the usual first ministers get-together, it couldn't be made, on the cheap, into a working national registry. Instead, it became a political pork project with "good optics" in the provinces that they needed to keep votes.
Then again, since the courts have ruled that any province is free to secede from the country by simple vote, there's more tendency to talk things out.
The rural/urban split also plays out in individual provinces, where you have "the regions" (aka the boonies) complaining about the cities. Part of the problem, inter-provincially, is that nobody wants to give up any power. The Atlantic provinces are going to continue to see their influence diminish if they don't unite into one province. It's one way to at least partially offset the declines in population. But of course that won't happen ...
The people are free to express their opinions individually or through political parties. Corporations aren't people. Muzzling corporations doesn't muzzle the individual people. I don't think that McDonalds or Google or any other corporate body should be entitled to try to influence the political process. They're not citizens. They should be treated the same as foreign nationals.
The people still have the right to assemble. What they don't have the right to do is form a corporation to advance, in their name, a specific agenda. They can advance that agenda perfectly well out in the open, outside the legal fiction of a corporation.
Carry your thought to the extreme - why can't citizens, under the US constitution, form a NATION to lobby for their interests? That's certainly freedom of assembly. "Don't like your current state and federal government - join JeebusLand! We're a new country inside the U S of A. Exercise your freedom of association and freedom of expression today - secede NOW!"
Somehow, it's okay to violate both freedoms when it comes to secession - and yet the US was founded on secession, and as was pointed out at the time - "Either we all hang together, or surely we will all hang separately" - because it was illegal even then.
So yes, I'm quite comfy with the idea of banning all corporate political activity, including lobbying. It tends to drown out the voices of the ordinary citizens.
Rankings of professions - who do you trust? http://www.gallup.com/poll/112264/Nurses-Shine-While-Bankers-Slump-Ethics-Ratings.aspx
Lawyers are always among the bottom-dwellers; even bankers and real estate agents rank higher. That's pretty bad.
Also, the rate is only low during the initial phase - like crack, the first one is free.
... which is the real reason Apple wants to kill flash - it won't let Apple fully exploit their h264 patents via, among other things, html5 video codecs.
You now admit that the law doesn't require people to turn stuff over to the police immediately. That's a step in the right direction.
There is nothing in the statute that says you have to turn in property to the police AFTER you've contacted the owner. If the owner has been contacted, the property is no longer "missing" or "misplaced."
Additionally, the law clearly states that it only applies to items worth more than $100.
There are plenty of places that will sell you an iPhone knockoff for $25 - $50. This looked like an iPhone knockoff. Apple denied it even existed, which is MORE reason to believe it was just a knockoff.
As for buying a real iPhone for $99 (not $100) - my cell phone provider has the base 8-gig model for that price right now - not an "upgrade deal", btw. New subscribers get that deal. I want a better one, of course.
What Giz paid for it is irrelevant. By then the product was no longer misplaced - the owner (Apple) had been contacted and had basically said "go away." So a couple of weeks later, more snooping, and "hey - this might be worth something after all" has ZERO to do with what transpired BEFORE Apple said "get stuffed".
So, to recap:
What Giz paid for it is irrelevant, since it was no longer misplaced, but abandoned, and the situation had changed - by then, there were a few rumours going around that there really was a g4 prototype out in the wild.
Kepp trying - eventually you'll see the light - that the statute doesn't apply, that common law does (item with apparent value under $100), and that he owned it free and clear once Apple said "get stuffed." Apple is responsible for their employees actions. Not him. Not Giz.
I'm just saying that my way is (1) cheaper (2) quicker (3) creates a public record that serves as a deterrent, and can be accessed by any future victims.
A private-practice lawyer isn't going to recommend using a publicly-available recourse that takes bread out of his own mouth. He's not going to say "Yes, I can sue him, but why don't you go to this publicly-funded commission instead and file a complaint for constructive dismissal and they will investigate it, and if it's justified they'll sue him at no cost to you?" (because quitting over sexual harassment is considered constructive dismissal).
That's the way it works here. Boss sexually harasses you, you document it, quit, and file the complaint. It's investigated, and if it's found to be valid, the parties either negotiate a settlement via the mediator, or the regulator sues on your behalf. And since a government agency has sharper teeth and claws than a lawyer working on contingency, people tend to behave.
If you don't have such a body in your jurisdiction, then perhaps its time to lobby for one? The same as all those states that have "at-will" firing practices, it's time to lobby them to change that. Montana did it - at the request of employers, who otherwise were facing the possibility of uncapped judgments.
You're going to have to come up with some way to put some controls on corporations vis. lobbying and campaign funding. Corporations aren't people. They don't have the rights of people, as simple as that. A law banning all corporate political contributions, whether in money or in kind, is needed. This doesn't abridge the individuals' freedom of speech - they are still free - as individuals, to say what they want. They simply wouldn't be free to form a corporation to say it in their place. Same as my dog can't exercise my rights in my place.
It's simple - if you have no right to vote, you don't get to participate in the political process as a citizen. Neither the corporation, nor the dog, can vote. Neither has rights as a citizen.
Corporations don't have political views. That's a reality. The people behind them do - so let them exercise their freedom of speech themselves, not through a corporate proxy. Same as they can vote themselves, but not through their corporate proxy.
Another difference between corporations and people - you can't throw a company in jail. You CAN throw the people behind it in jail, when those individuals can be shown to have committed crimes. But corporations? They cannot be jailed, since they are a legal fiction. They are not persons, and don't have the same rights or properties as citizens. The lowest citizen has more rights than the largest corporation - and we should be acting that way.
Then again, I live in a country where we have freedom of speech for individuals, but NOT for corporations, and we do have campaign finance laws in this province that are very strict. The sky didn't fall in - to the contrary, criticizing whoever's in power is a national pass-time. And since we're not competing with big campaign donors for the politicians' ear, we get heard more. Just a thought.
That was the issue when the freedom of the press was being written into the first amendment - that government can't just say "stop the presses." The press has the right to publish the news. People have a right to voice opinions. The press doesn't have the same latitude to voice opinions under the constitution except where they are news. Saying that the NY Times editors endorse a candidate is not news - it belongs in the entertainment or op-ed pages.
Yes, I do. And the best way to teach kids that something is wrong is by doing. Better that they learn that principles are worth standing up for, and taking risks for, and that it's possible to stand up for your rights, and that it's the right thing to do, and that, no matter what, you WILL muddle through.
Otherwise, it becomes too easy to justify bending the rules, then outright criminal behaviour - "If I quit, then my kids might go hungry, so I had no choice, I had to continue to help Madoff."
I'm not buying it.
The law is targeted at Mexicans. However, the truth is that if every illegal Mexican were rounded up tomorrow, Arizona would fall apart. They're essential to the economy. This law is not about "enforcing the law" - it's about keeping people of a specific skin colour "in their place."
If the white robe and hood are starting to feel a bit confining, maybe you should take them off?
If you're white, you or one of your forbearers were an illegal immigrant. There were other people here first, you know. The attempted geonocide of the native population via smallpox-contaminated blankets is a documented fact. That's not "fair dealing" under any law or convention. Which makes you an illegal, and certainly puts the lie to the "melting-pot" myth. Not that we believe it anyway. There are too many cases od DWB - driving while black - and the judicial system has a proven bias against non-whites. And that's before we get into the equal rights of lesbians, gays, and transpeople. Nope - no melting pot here unless you're an angry old white person.
The problem with illegal immigrants isn't going to go away because of this law. To the contrary, it's going to make it harder to deal with the problem, by making people on both sides more suspicious. Bush was on the right track when he proposed that there should be a path to legitimacy for illegals. This acknowledges that there are plenty of children of illegals who are nonetheless American citizens, born on American soil, and deporting their parents infringes on THEIR rights.
(mark this day on your calendar - I actually said something good about a Bush policy :-)
The first amendment applies to people. Companies are not people. Newspapers should stick to reporting, not endorsing.
If the boss is a creep who's trying to sexually harass you, you (1) say no, (2) get a job elsewhere, (3) file a complaint. No, it doesn't put food on the table, but that's the way life is sometimes.
There's a difference between "being propositioned at work" and what you originally claimed, that "Someone I know was terminated from her job for refusing to perform certain "services" for her boss". Which was it? And why didn't she (a) tell him to get stuffed, and (b) start looking for a job elsewhere?
In sexual harassment cases, it's important to do both. Just like in constructive dismissal cases, it's important to immediately (as in "on the spot") refuse the change in working conditions, or you are deemed to have accepted the change. Delay, even over the weekend, kills it. Refuse it, make your refusal known, and you can continue to work "under protest" while preserving your legal rights ... or you can walk out immediately, and again preserve your legal rights. What you can't do is just shut up and do nothing. When it comes down to - literally - a case of "he said / she said", your reactions WILL be taken into consideration. Saying "I found it offensive but I didn't quit" is also saying "I didn't find it offensive enough to quit." It's called "putting your money where your mouth is" for a reason.
So back to the sexual harassment. Refuse, make it known, and start looking for another job. Sexual harassment IS a form of constructive dismissal.
You don't need a lawyer to tell you this, or to back up your rights - plenty of jurisdictions have regulators who do this for free. In those that don't, you STILL have to tell them to get lost and start looking elsewhere, or it can be argued that it wasn't "that unacceptable to you - after all, you didn't quit." Maybe it shouldn't be like that, but that's the reality of it. If something is that offensive, you HAVE to go on record immediately, and your subsequent actions HAVE to match. Quiting isn't an option - it's pretty much mandatory.
First, people suspected it was not legit. Even Apple disowned it.
Second, the law that YOU cited is clear - even if it was worth $100,000.00, there is no duty to turn it in to police immediately. The law acknowledges the validity of common law by stating that the finder keeps it for a reasonable amount of time (unlike what you tried to claim), and only turns it in if it's unclaimed, and only if it's clearly worth more than $100.00. Neither applies here (see the following).
Third, it was not at all clear it was a prototype of anything. It was in a 3g-like case, but wasn't a 3g, just like plenty of 3g knock-offs that you can pick up in bars for $25.00 to $50.00. It's only after opening it up (which the guy never did) that it was obvious that it wasn't a dead $50 knock-off.
Fourth, given that the phone in question was bricked, how do you get off comparing it to the price of an unbricked, never mind an unlocked, phone? That's one of the worst apple-oranges comparisons going. And I can get a brand new Apple iPhone for $99.00. Sure, it's the base model, but still, that's my price. The 16 gig is $199, and the 32 gig is $299. Not that I'd buy any of them.
Fifth, he didn't phone "some random number". He phoned the same number the cops would have phoned. So sad. Too bad.
Yes, they would. RIM isn't as complete an asshole as Apple. So would my carrier.
It had no apparent value. It appeared to be a cheap, dead knock-off. It was Apple's property, Apple was contacted, Apple abandoned it. Once it was abandoned, the guy could do whatever he wanted with it. So stop trying to justify it's when obvious you didn't know in the first place that Apple HAD been contacted and HAD abandoned it. In other words, stop being such a n Apple fanboi.
And no, Gizmo is not guilty of buying stolen property. Given Apple's public denial that the phone even existed, their refusal to acknowledge it when contacted, and that it looked like a knock-off, there's no case for "buying stolen property."
Unfortunately, they ARE addictive - people go through junk food withdrawal, same as Pepsi withdrawal, or any other crap.
1. Because you start fixing things by starting at the top. A fish rots from the head.
2. Make it the same rule for everyone. No corporate endorsements. Period.
3. Many jurisdictions have sexual harassment in the workplace laws. If she lives in one of those, file a complaint. If she doesn't, then maybe it would be time to start agitating for such laws. Or she could have gone the cheaper route - record the harassment, give a copy to police as evidence for a charge of attempted sexual assault, post it on youtube and make money going on the talk show circuit. Bonus: No need for a "confidentiality" agreement (which is what ends up happening if the perp agrees to pay up).
People are using their cell phones to record all sorts of things nowadays - one teenager made a video of several other students pushing her off a cliff. The students have been charged with kidnapping and attempted murder.
In other words, there's nothing wrong with holding on to it and waiting for the rightful owner to claim it. There is NO duty to turn it over to the cops. To the contrary, just a few lines below, it says the exact opposite ... it says "within a reasonable time". In other words, you turn it over to the owner of the establishment it was found in, under common law, and the owner has to, within a reasonable time, if it is still unclaimed, AND if it is worth more than $100, turn it over to the cops.
So, what's a used iPhone worth? I can get a new one for $99.00 So, what's a used one worth? Most people would say less than that. So again, common law applies, not your statute, which only applies to items with an apparent worth of $100 or more.
BTW - The guy contacted Apple. Apple blew him off. At that point it is no longer mislaid property - it is abandoned property. You abandon it, that's your problem. Or in this case, Apple's problem.
What is it with dumb Americans who don't even know (a) how to read, (b) their country's own laws, (c) how to search for something? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost,_mislaid,_and_abandoned_property#Mislaid_property?
The last I heard, the US was a common-law jurisdiction. Unless a specific jurisdiction has over-ridden that common-law principle, common law applies. The phone was mislaid in a bar. Give it to the operator of the establishment, not the police. The police have better things to do with their time. It was not found on public property, and isn't their problem to deal with. If it had been found on the sidewalk or the public road, that would be a different story.
The guy who found the iPhone called APPLE - the OWNER. THEY blew the guy off. It's a matter of record. You and Apple are the only ones showing, as you call it, "half-assed" thinking processes.