Businesses must weigh all these factors when determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor. Some factors may indicate that the worker is an employee, while other factors indicate that the worker is an independent contractor. There is no âoemagicâ or set number of factors that âoemakesâ the worker an employee or an independent contractor, and no one factor stands alone in making this determination. Also, factors which are relevant in one situation may not be relevant in another.
The keys are to look at the entire relationship, consider the degree or extent of the right to direct and control, and finally, to document each of the factors used in coming up with the determination.
So, what are these factors? From the same web page...
Behavioral: Does the company control or have the right to control what the worker does and how the worker does his or her job?
These sites, dictating how the job is accomplished, sure look like it.
Financial: Are the business aspects of the workerâ(TM)s job controlled by the payer? (these include things like how worker is paid, whether expenses are reimbursed, who provides tools/supplies, etc.)
Paid by the hour sure sounds like it's not "contract work."
Type of Relationship: Are there written contracts or employee type benefits (i.e. pension plan, insurance, vacation pay, etc.)? Will the relationship continue and is the work performed a key aspect of the business?
Microsoft got into trouble with this with their perma-temps programs. You can't just repeatedly hire the same person "as a contract worker" forever - at one point, in the eyes of the IRS and the courts, they become an employee.
He owns the equipment and has a right to do whatever he wants with it.
No, the employer doesn't own either the equipment OR the bandwidth being used. This is about those cheap no-frills freelance sites, where you're competing with hourly workers from the 3rd world.
Basic English fail:-) There is a difference between saying a group represents another group, and saying that a group is representative of another group.
Example: I may represent a group in negotiations, without being representative of (having anything in common or being like) any member of that group.
OWS represents the American population, including those who are either intimidated or don't have time to participate. They do not have to be an exact representation of the population to do so, any more than a black lawyer has to change skin colour to represent a white crack-head.
It's easy enough - I picked a random result from "who is in the top 1%", and it lists some interesting samples. For example, of the top 25 richest members of congress, only 1 is listed as supporting OWS.
Every member of the 1% I have heard speak has been supportive of the OWS
I guess you missed Herman Cain (yes, Cain is a 1%er).
You don't need the source code, any more than you need it to attack XP.
The simplest is to make sure that binaries are not altered while running.
The next form of protection is parameter verification against known flaws. Just replace the jmp to the code to be protected with a jmp to your own verification routine, which itself then either calls the original function, or sanitizes the parameters and then calls the original function, or, if it's not possible to clean it up, generates an error.
You certainly don't need the source code to do this, any more than the virus writers do to write their own code that does the same, but inserts their own routines instead. Even a stripped binary can be worked on.
Having read part of the blog, this blogger needs a course in basic writing. It may be hard to conceive, but it reads WORSE than many of the summaries here on slashdot.
If instead of writing like a teenager posting on facebook or myspace, she had written articles that actually told the who, what, when, where, why, and how in a coherent fashion, she may have been able to avoid being seen as "not a journalist."
If you're going to call someone a liar, whether it's in a blog or in print or on radio or TV, there's a right way to do it, and a wrong way to do it. The right way, you make your case point by point, you present your evidence in a fashion that is easily digested by the reader, and you present your conclusion that the person lied based solely on that evidence. Not speculation. Not "Did so-and-so lie?" That's just innuendo., and not protected.
The judgment also points out that it helps if you can also show that you contacted the person before publishing, either to get their side of the story or to confirm the actual events.
What Cox did was called "yellow journalism", originally known for the colour of the cheap paper the scandal rags were printed on well before they went main-stream at your local grocery checkout counter.
Yes, but the issue is can you offer protection to your sources?
You can always protect your sources - though it may mean spending time in the cooler...
However, doing so, and then getting thrown in jail for it, pretty much establishes you as a journalist in the eyes of the public, as journalists WILL go to jail rather than give up a source. So, you get your street cred, you then get access to better sources, and the next time there's no question but that you are a journalist.
The OWS movement may actually have helped provided some half-decent shelter and human contact to homeless individuals. Instead of shutting them down, the cities should have tried to use the opportunity to do a bit of outreach. Tap into a bit of the idealism there to maybe get some of the people involved in helping solve the problem.
Yes, there were drug and booze problems at OWS sites - but there are drug and booze problems everywhere, including in law enforcement and the legislature.
People want to work, they want a job, they want dignity, and they want a sense of equal justice. The politicians showed that they can't think outside the box by not seizing the opportunity. They showed who they don't serve... and by contrast, who they do.
You don't have to be awake to be actively taking part in a protest. Your presence, and your activities while you're awake, are sufficient. The protesters were exercising their 1st Amendment rights, on public lands.
I've done a few civil rights protests, and one of them was 10 days straight... I certainly wasn't awake the whole time. But as long as I was on public property, and didn't impede anyone else, there was nothing the police could do.
On one occasion, the police did issue tickets. I refused to vacate and end the protest, and the ticket was later thrown out of court because it was clearly unconstitutional. I didn't even get to present the case - the judge threw it out before I got a chance to even enter a plea of not guilty.
It's a shame to see that people are now dumping on others who are speaking up for almost everyone.
Go look for it yourself. It may no longer be available on the web (these things aren't "written in stone", as you well know), but I remember it, and I'm sure that a few others do to.
As for the use of a crack to re-enable a legitimate copy of XP if Microsoft attempts to de-activate it, it's perfectly legitimate. The only entity with standing to complain would be Microsoft, and they would have to admit that they violated the law when they remotely shut down the software (which was illegal even pre-DMCA, based on the l'Oreal case).
So yes, XP will be around, and legal, well after April 8th, 2014.
As soon as you supply your information to a 2nd party, it's no longer *your* information
Not true (except maybe in the US, where copyright law seems to only apply in favour of corporations, and the sheeple have ceded control of the political process to lobbyists because the rednecks fear limitations on political campaign donations and pork to the point where privacy legislation is decades behind the rest of the world).
Bankster has been a proper term since the 1930s, you insensitive clod!
Words pop in and out of our language as social conditions change. The American gangster, which is still with us, has been around as a noun and a reality since 1896 according to my Shorter Oxford, but it seems to have dropped another Americanism from the 1930s and I think now is the time to revive it.
The word is bankster, derived by a marriage of banker and gangster.
It was coined, as far as I can deduce, by an American immigrant, a fiery Sicilian-born lawyer by the name of Ferdinand Pecora. He was the chief counsel to the US Senate Committee on Banking set up in the early 30s to probe the origins of the Crash of 1929.
He exposed quite a lot of the Wall Street practices that Harvard's Professor William Z Ripley had condemned in 1928. The believable Ripley called them - get ready for these Americanisms - "prestidigitation, double-shuffling, honey-fugling, hornswoggling and skullduggery".
The professor had vainly tried to warn President Calvin Coolidge that Wall Street was full of gas and was bound to blow up. To great discomfort all round, Pecora identified Coolidge himself, by then out of office, as one of those who'd been in on the honey-fugling.
The great banking house of JP Morgan had the president on a "preferred list" by which the bank's influential friends were given a chance to buy stock at half price. Shall we say, they made out like bandits?
Today the term bankster perfectly fits Bernard Madoff, whose crooked Ponzi scheme lost $50 billion of what the trade calls OPM - other people's money - invested with him.
And p0wnage is a term well-understood by the community, which perfectly describes what the lobbyists have done to the political process.
Public parks are public - they're "owned" by the people. If people choose to camp out on them as a means of protesting against the governments' policies wrt the bail-outs and Wall Street greed and influence on the political process, it's a legitimate free-speech issue.
So, what would you say if they rotated out - each protester left the site for 1 hour a day, so that they were not "living there" - would that be okay? How about if they made it 12 hours a day - and half took the day shift, and the other half the night shift? Would that be okay?
Or is it just that it's only okay to protest during office hours? In which case, you're denying the first amendment rights of people who work during that period... as well as it being an arbitrary and unjustifiable restraint on free speech.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I do. And I'm sure others do to. And no, you don't need "the key" - XP is easy enough to crack if they try to shut it down after the support term is over (and at that point, it would be legal to use the cracks if you have a legit copy).
Eternal vigilance. When we do something wrong, call us on it.
Gitmo. Corporate p0wnership of your election process. Countrywide/BofA and the bank and wall street bailouts. Not one bailout bankster in jail. The clamp-down on the OWS movement, which is a fundamental free-speech issue.
There's 5 to get you started. The shutdown of the "virtual embassy" is small potatoes in comparison. It was also a really, REALLY dumb idea to begin with. After all, it would be easy enough for the Iranian authorities to track who accesses it, make a list, check it twice, find out who's been naughty... same as the US has been doing for a couple of decades with Echelon..
Actually, there is. Example: Cyber-stalking is the net equivalent of stalking. Both are done in public, and both are illegal. Or are you going to argue that both forms of stalking has suddenly become legal?
Just because something is posted in a public forum does NOT give 3rd parties the right to use it beyond the original agreed-upon terms, and nowhere did anyone give express consent to let their posts be aggregated by some 3rd party, such as the Library of Congress. The LoC was not a party to any agreement with the users, and the users only agreed to allow their posts to be stored and shared for the purpose of posts on twitter, not other services, and not a government agency.
Who cares about script kiddies with pirated software? If you have a legit copy of XP, Microsoft cannot legally "kill" it. Ever. Even if a future EULA update says otherwise.
3rd parties will continue to offer protection for XP well after April 2014, because it's money in their pocket, and there's nothing Microsoft can do. There's nothing to prevent someone coming out with software to run XP and ensure that system binaries and other essential files cannot be altered, over-written, or accessed in unusual ways. This wouldn't be a conventional hypervisor, so Microsoft can stuff any complaints.
If the linux desktops were so great, everyone would be using them, instead of < 1%. The fact that even people like me, who have been using linux for more than a decade, are fed up with having to distro-hop is a symptom of how bad the situation is. They are not switching *to* a linux desktop - they're switching *from* Ubuntu - some are switching to Mint, some to other distros, some abandoning linux to go to the *BSDs, or back to Windows, or on to OSX.
The linux desktop is a joke. My laptop is a good example - wifi is once again broken, graphics was broken until I fixed things by booting into single user - console only mode (good luck getting the average consumer to do that), my "linux supported" printer doesn't work, and a bunch of other problems. It's simply never going to be ready for prime time because even now, in so many ways, it's less user-friendly than Windows9x, never mind XP or OSX or Win7. Stuff just doesn't work, and upgrades break things on a regular basis.
Until people admit that there is no financial model that will work to fix this problem (no thanks to the GPL), and pulls an Apple and develops a desktop that can be sold at a profit per unit to consumers (probably atop FreeBSD, same as Apple did), it won't change. Look at the only real consumer success for linux - Android. It completely hides linux, and it could just as easily have been built atop one of the BSDs.
First, the concept of "anonymity of the crowd" is protected by law in places like Canada. You know, places where the government isn't bought and sold so readily because of limits on political campaign financing...
Second, nobody authorized twitter (or anyone else) to turn over the entire posting history to researchers.
1. Take bribes from other students to be the first one to cheat.
2. Blatantly cheat and get caught.
3. Become the proctor, and ignore everyone now cheating.
Slashdot Mirror
Excellent point!!!!!
Employees are paid by the hour. Independent contractors are paid by the piecework or by the job.
Here's what the IRS has to say about it
So, what are these factors? From the same web page ...
These sites, dictating how the job is accomplished, sure look like it.
Paid by the hour sure sounds like it's not "contract work."
Microsoft got into trouble with this with their perma-temps programs. You can't just repeatedly hire the same person "as a contract worker" forever - at one point, in the eyes of the IRS and the courts, they become an employee.
No, the employer doesn't own either the equipment OR the bandwidth being used. This is about those cheap no-frills freelance sites, where you're competing with hourly workers from the 3rd world.
Sites like odesk and elance are the quickest way to devalue yourself, your work, and your future.
Basic English fail :-) There is a difference between saying a group represents another group, and saying that a group is representative of another group.
Example: I may represent a group in negotiations, without being representative of (having anything in common or being like) any member of that group.
OWS represents the American population, including those who are either intimidated or don't have time to participate. They do not have to be an exact representation of the population to do so, any more than a black lawyer has to change skin colour to represent a white crack-head.
I guess you missed Herman Cain (yes, Cain is a 1%er).
Statistically, most of the 1% are against OWS.
You don't need the source code, any more than you need it to attack XP.
The simplest is to make sure that binaries are not altered while running.
The next form of protection is parameter verification against known flaws. Just replace the jmp to the code to be protected with a jmp to your own verification routine, which itself then either calls the original function, or sanitizes the parameters and then calls the original function, or, if it's not possible to clean it up, generates an error.
You certainly don't need the source code to do this, any more than the virus writers do to write their own code that does the same, but inserts their own routines instead. Even a stripped binary can be worked on.
Having read part of the blog, this blogger needs a course in basic writing. It may be hard to conceive, but it reads WORSE than many of the summaries here on slashdot.
If instead of writing like a teenager posting on facebook or myspace, she had written articles that actually told the who, what, when, where, why, and how in a coherent fashion, she may have been able to avoid being seen as "not a journalist."
If you're going to call someone a liar, whether it's in a blog or in print or on radio or TV, there's a right way to do it, and a wrong way to do it. The right way, you make your case point by point, you present your evidence in a fashion that is easily digested by the reader, and you present your conclusion that the person lied based solely on that evidence. Not speculation. Not "Did so-and-so lie?" That's just innuendo., and not protected.
The judgment also points out that it helps if you can also show that you contacted the person before publishing, either to get their side of the story or to confirm the actual events.
What Cox did was called "yellow journalism", originally known for the colour of the cheap paper the scandal rags were printed on well before they went main-stream at your local grocery checkout counter.
You can always protect your sources - though it may mean spending time in the cooler ...
However, doing so, and then getting thrown in jail for it, pretty much establishes you as a journalist in the eyes of the public, as journalists WILL go to jail rather than give up a source. So, you get your street cred, you then get access to better sources, and the next time there's no question but that you are a journalist.
The OWS movement may actually have helped provided some half-decent shelter and human contact to homeless individuals. Instead of shutting them down, the cities should have tried to use the opportunity to do a bit of outreach. Tap into a bit of the idealism there to maybe get some of the people involved in helping solve the problem.
Yes, there were drug and booze problems at OWS sites - but there are drug and booze problems everywhere, including in law enforcement and the legislature.
People want to work, they want a job, they want dignity, and they want a sense of equal justice. The politicians showed that they can't think outside the box by not seizing the opportunity. They showed who they don't serve ... and by contrast, who they do.
You don't have to be awake to be actively taking part in a protest. Your presence, and your activities while you're awake, are sufficient. The protesters were exercising their 1st Amendment rights, on public lands.
I've done a few civil rights protests, and one of them was 10 days straight ... I certainly wasn't awake the whole time. But as long as I was on public property, and didn't impede anyone else, there was nothing the police could do.
On one occasion, the police did issue tickets. I refused to vacate and end the protest, and the ticket was later thrown out of court because it was clearly unconstitutional. I didn't even get to present the case - the judge threw it out before I got a chance to even enter a plea of not guilty.
It's a shame to see that people are now dumping on others who are speaking up for almost everyone.
As for the use of a crack to re-enable a legitimate copy of XP if Microsoft attempts to de-activate it, it's perfectly legitimate. The only entity with standing to complain would be Microsoft, and they would have to admit that they violated the law when they remotely shut down the software (which was illegal even pre-DMCA, based on the l'Oreal case).
So yes, XP will be around, and legal, well after April 8th, 2014.
Not true (except maybe in the US, where copyright law seems to only apply in favour of corporations, and the sheeple have ceded control of the political process to lobbyists because the rednecks fear limitations on political campaign donations and pork to the point where privacy legislation is decades behind the rest of the world).
And p0wnage is a term well-understood by the community, which perfectly describes what the lobbyists have done to the political process.
Public parks are public - they're "owned" by the people. If people choose to camp out on them as a means of protesting against the governments' policies wrt the bail-outs and Wall Street greed and influence on the political process, it's a legitimate free-speech issue.
So, what would you say if they rotated out - each protester left the site for 1 hour a day, so that they were not "living there" - would that be okay? How about if they made it 12 hours a day - and half took the day shift, and the other half the night shift? Would that be okay?
Or is it just that it's only okay to protest during office hours? In which case, you're denying the first amendment rights of people who work during that period ... as well as it being an arbitrary and unjustifiable restraint on free speech.
Now, let's look at it from the other side. If the OWS protesters WERE to be considered as living there, as you claim, then they have a 4th Amendment right to be free of search and seizure except with a warrant, duly issued. And that warrant has to clearly identify them, not just as Jane Doe # 27, as per the 4th Amendment.
XP is going to be around for years to come ...
Well, it's *still* better than failbook ... though the changes to "Ask Slashdot" might be a shot across the bow ...
Gitmo. Corporate p0wnership of your election process. Countrywide/BofA and the bank and wall street bailouts. Not one bailout bankster in jail. The clamp-down on the OWS movement, which is a fundamental free-speech issue.
There's 5 to get you started. The shutdown of the "virtual embassy" is small potatoes in comparison. It was also a really, REALLY dumb idea to begin with. After all, it would be easy enough for the Iranian authorities to track who accesses it, make a list, check it twice, find out who's been naughty ... same as the US has been doing for a couple of decades with Echelon..
Actually, there is. Example: Cyber-stalking is the net equivalent of stalking. Both are done in public, and both are illegal. Or are you going to argue that both forms of stalking has suddenly become legal?
Just because something is posted in a public forum does NOT give 3rd parties the right to use it beyond the original agreed-upon terms, and nowhere did anyone give express consent to let their posts be aggregated by some 3rd party, such as the Library of Congress. The LoC was not a party to any agreement with the users, and the users only agreed to allow their posts to be stored and shared for the purpose of posts on twitter, not other services, and not a government agency.
Who cares about script kiddies with pirated software? If you have a legit copy of XP, Microsoft cannot legally "kill" it. Ever. Even if a future EULA update says otherwise.
3rd parties will continue to offer protection for XP well after April 2014, because it's money in their pocket, and there's nothing Microsoft can do. There's nothing to prevent someone coming out with software to run XP and ensure that system binaries and other essential files cannot be altered, over-written, or accessed in unusual ways. This wouldn't be a conventional hypervisor, so Microsoft can stuff any complaints.
If the linux desktops were so great, everyone would be using them, instead of < 1%. The fact that even people like me, who have been using linux for more than a decade, are fed up with having to distro-hop is a symptom of how bad the situation is. They are not switching *to* a linux desktop - they're switching *from* Ubuntu - some are switching to Mint, some to other distros, some abandoning linux to go to the *BSDs, or back to Windows, or on to OSX.
The linux desktop is a joke. My laptop is a good example - wifi is once again broken, graphics was broken until I fixed things by booting into single user - console only mode (good luck getting the average consumer to do that), my "linux supported" printer doesn't work, and a bunch of other problems. It's simply never going to be ready for prime time because even now, in so many ways, it's less user-friendly than Windows9x, never mind XP or OSX or Win7. Stuff just doesn't work, and upgrades break things on a regular basis.
Until people admit that there is no financial model that will work to fix this problem (no thanks to the GPL), and pulls an Apple and develops a desktop that can be sold at a profit per unit to consumers (probably atop FreeBSD, same as Apple did), it won't change. Look at the only real consumer success for linux - Android. It completely hides linux, and it could just as easily have been built atop one of the BSDs.
First, the concept of "anonymity of the crowd" is protected by law in places like Canada. You know, places where the government isn't bought and sold so readily because of limits on political campaign financing ...
Second, nobody authorized twitter (or anyone else) to turn over the entire posting history to researchers.
Just Barbara ... please see my profile to see what the "tom" part stands for :-)
If it's more than the cost of re-taking the course, it's a win for sure ... :-)
1. Take bribes from other students to be the first one to cheat.
2. Blatantly cheat and get caught.
3. Become the proctor, and ignore everyone now cheating.