The best part of Fan Death is that fans made for the Korean market have automatic timing devices that are designed to prevent "accidental" Fan Death by shutting the fan off.
Are you in the United States? A Federal Employee? In a security-related field/agency? In management? Who told you it was illegal to organize?
The key is that civil service is not the traditional at-will employment. This is specifically designed to insulate people in your situation from political influence. It's particularly true when someone uses non-government time to make their statements.
The rules can be complicated and there are exceptions to the right to collective bargaining (particularly in law enforcement/national security agencies). You may fall into one of those exceptions, have a particular job, be within a probationary period, or otherwise be misinformed about your rights. I would never advise anyone to take an action that might subject you to retribution without consulting counsel first. However, in my years as a (volunteer) union lawyer for a federal agency, I saw many examples of the civil service system and collective bargaining in action. Sometimes it protected bad employees, other times it protected good ones trying to make a statement.
Anyone who has ever bad-mouthed the "lazy government unions" needs to think about this type of directive next time they utter those words. Because of Union protections, this type of directive is rarely enforceable against career government employees.
Suppose an employee defies this prohibition and speaks with the press. Management is constrained in how it can retaliate. Certainly it can deny future advancement opportunities, but most employees are semi-immune to this type of intimidation because of the civil service system.
Don't get me wrong -- the same protection that apply to a conscientious employee who feels the need to speak with the press also protects (to a limited degree) someone who sits and plays solitaire all day. But Unions and the civil service system shine at moments like this.
Why are the fees and cost claims of the defendants placed under such high analytical scrutiny
Why? Because the law requires it. Please do not mix up what you think the law should be and whether a judge is doing a good job interpreting the laws as they are.
Section 505 the Copyright Act states:
505. Remedies for infringement: Costs and attorney's fees
In any civil action under this title, the court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the United States or an officer thereof. Except as otherwise provided by this title, the court may also award a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs.
Interesting point. The inaccuracies in the drug war laws are legion and we could have an entire thread about that. But in regards to attorney's fees, I have a couple of thoughts.
First is that the statutes and resulting case law are relatively specific on the standards that are used to determine "reasonable" attorney's fees. I suspect that the "logic" you laid out with respect to LSD is completely in keeping with the language of the statute (which itself sounds like it may be flawed). This is not coincidence. The courts are very good at applying the same law uniformly in most cases and there is an elaborate appellate system designed to iron out inconsistancies in the interpretation of the same law. Due process requires that every person caught with LSD is held to the same standard (regardless of whether that standard is reasonable). Here, attorney's fees are intended to be consistent across the system and the standards are thus fairly well laid out. Of course, humans will always react differently to the same set of facts, but the system largely tries to discourage that in many instances.
The second thing to keep in mind is that most lawyers have limited scientific knowledge. Attorney's fees are something most judges are intimately familiar with. But evaluating the potency of LSD? Not even close.
Why shouldn't the paralegal's fees be included? Who should pay for that work to be done? If you're saying it's too expensive, I have no knowledge with which to disagree. But if you're saying it shouldn't be included at all, I'd have to disagree. Someone has to pay for the paralegal's work - why should it be Ms. Foster or the firm? Happy to clarify. First, $80 per hour is a high billing rate for most paralegals. But it depends on the type of work involved. Highly technical and skilled paralegals, working in a complicated area of law they are skilled in, can easily command this type of rate. But as the Judge's opinion clarifies, this was not a person with any particular specialized knowledge of copyright. Thus he found the hourly rate was too high. Second, the Judge goes through and discusses the specific tasks performed by the paralegal. He finds that many of the tasks were no not "legal" in nature and thus could not be reasonably billed at legal rates. For example, on more than one evening I have stood at the copier preparing documents for a meeting. I can't (ethically) bill the client for my non-legal time (especially when it was just because my lazy ass didn't feel like getting get the docs prepared in time for the secretarial pool to take care of it). Essentially, I am for that period of time a secretary and should bill like one.
In short: It is perfectly normal and accepted to bill for paralegal time. But in this particular case, the Judge made a rather detailed finding that these specific bills were excessive.
Please read my post. I said "I would exepect to hear nothing else from an attorney vigorously pursuing her case." The "her" I refer to is Marilyn Barringer-Thomson, the attorney for Ms. Foster. NYCL is Ray Beckerman and is a male (to the best of my knowledge and belief). I fully expect Ms. Barringet-Thomson will be making the same argument.
But more importantly, you are looking for an unbiased analysis from someone whose blog is titled "Recording Industry vs. People" and subtitled "About the RIAA's attempt to monopolize digital music by redefining copyright law, through the commencement of tens of thousands of extortionate lawsuits against ordinary working people." I respect Mr. Beckerman's work, but he is hardly "an unrelated lawyer". Moreover, it would be a serious breach of legal ethics if he did represent Ms. Foster and then went and blabbed about it in this way.
I am not all sympathetic to the RIAA, but someone's critical reading skills need a little work.
The judge was brutal in cutting down Ms. Foster's fee award. Forgive me, but I found the Judge's analysis of the appropriate attorney's fees to be awarded to be extremely well-reasoned and thorough. Obviously, Ms. Foster's attorneys are likely to disagree, but the Judge's opinion speaks for itself: http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDFfull.asp?filename= capitol_foster_070716OrderAwardAttysFees.
I suggest most people taking the time to read the 16 page order will be convinced that, regardless of whether the Judge reached the precisely "correct" dollar amount, he certainly gave it due consideration.
One thing I found particularly interesting was that the fee agreement between Ms. Foster and her attorneys called for a rate of $175 per hour. The requested reimbursement was for $225 per hour. While a fee arrangement is not binding, it is certainly instructive to the court as to the actual cost to Ms. Foster. Much of the reduction from $100k to $68k was from this one change.
Similarly, the Judge refused to allow Ms. Foster's attorneys to bill $80 per hour for work by a paralegal. It seems perfectly reasonable to me not to include these costs. Basically, the Judge went through each bill and evaluated its reasonableness. Exactly my managing partner does to me each month and more importantly, exactly what the law requires in copyright cases.
There is a law against frivolous appeals, and an appeal from this judgment would be frivolous.
First, of course the other side's appeal is frivolous! Have you ever heard opposing counsel say anything other than that? They teach that in remedial lawyering! I would expect to hear nothing else from an attorney vigorously pursuing her case.
Second, if Ms. Foster and her attorneys believe that an appeal is her best interest, she has every right to pursue such an appeal.
Third, you are correct that there is a law against frivolous appeals. If an unbiased court finds that an appeal is truly frivolous (and that's a pretty high burden) the court may again order attorney's fees, sanction the attorneys involved, or even report them to the state bar for disciplinary action.
Remember, frivolous =/= stupid or dumb or unlikely to succeed. Appealing a judgment in favor of the other side is rarely going to be considered frivolous under the legal standard.
For the record: Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
(b) Representations to Court. By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;
(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.
(c) Sanctions. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation.
(1) How Initiated.
(A) By Motion. A motion for sanctions under this rule shall be made separately from other motions or requests and shall describe the specific conduct alleged to violate subdivision (b). It shall be served as provided in Rule 5, but shall not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion (or such other period as the court may prescribe), the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. If warranted, the court may award to the party prevailing on the motion the reasonable expenses and attorney's fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees.
(B) On Court's Initiative. On its own initiative, the court may enter an order describing the specific conduct that appears to violate subdivision (b) and directing an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why it has not violated subdivision (b) with respect thereto.
(2) Nature of Sanction; Limitations. A sanction imposed for violation of this rule shall be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. Subject to the limitations in subparagraphs (A) and (B), the sanction may consist of, or include, directives of a nonmonetary nature, an order to pay a pena
Enough with the outrage people. Welcome to Law School 101. For your first class in civil procedure, we will discuss entry of judgment. Here are the basic steps common to almost all legal proceedings (simplified):
1. Sue someone.
2. Have a trial / reach settlement.
3. Reach a verdict.
4. Judge enters judgment. Note: This is not a "final" judgment. Judgment only becomes final after the period for appeal has ended.
5. Losing party has right to appeal or it may simply pay.
6. Appeal is processed and after all appellate rights have been "exhausted", FINAL judgment is entered.
7. Winning party seeks formal entry of judgment in a separate proceeding (usually called "enrolling" the judgment, although that term varies by jurisdiction).
7. ???
8. Collect judgment.
9. Profit.
In short, I know RIAA are a bunch of scum-sucking *ahem* lawyers, but this whole case is premised on a serious misunderstanding of how the legal system works. Any one of us could go through the same process and draw out any case to the same degree. Most reasonable parties settleup after the initial entry of judgment, but there is certainly no requirement that a party forego its legal rights just to be "nice."
In fact, it somewhat makes sense that things work this way. Put aside your dislike for RIAA for a second. Assume that a losing party justifiably feels that it was wronged by the Judge's decision and wishes to appeal. Does it make sense that they should be required to pay the judgment before the decision has been reviewed by a higher court? In order to protect against the danger of default, it is common to request that the losing party be required to post security in an escrow account during the pendancy of the appeal.
In short: I admire the marketing arm of this particular law firm, but really, nothing to see here.
I actually agree with this. Perhaps my idealism is fading as I hit the wrong side of 30, but I don't understand why anyone would feel they have the right to wholesale steal music. It's not that expensive to buy mainstream music off the internet. Even stores provide some added value.
Moreover, there are so many wonderful low cost sources of unusual hard-to-find music these days that I really no longer buy into the it's-too-hard-to-find-so-I-must-pirate argument. Certainly, the music by the garage band formed by your best friend in kindergarden who you then lost touch with may not be available on iTunes.... but he's also not going to sue you. He's also probably not trying to make a living off his music.
One thing that gets me is the argument that a musician isn't being harmed by music piracy. This is simply false. You can argue about the degree of harm, but so what?* Every song that's sold results at the very least in more publicity and bargaining power for the artist -- even in the rare case they don't receive any actual $ for their music. Stealing music from an independent struggling musician is just unconscionable. I'm certainly not going to lose sleep over Brittany Spears losing out on a few sales; but where do you draw the line? These days, artists have a choice whether or not to sign a big label deal -- this is not 20 years ago where it's play ball with the big boys or go home.
Finally, just to add something of value to this post -- I recently came across a website called http://amiestreet.com/. This is an amazing example of what indie music can be. Looking around on this site, I came across obscure little bands that I swore I would never hear from again, and yet here they are, trying to make a few bucks. What possible excuse do I have of stealing from these folks? Look at the prices -- I think I paid as much as 75 cents for one song and as little as $1.12 for an album.
Really folks, don't you think piracy is so 1999?
* My favorite story is from Jill Sobule, who is a truly gifted singer/song-writer. http://www.jillsobule.com/home.html She had one breakthrough hit many moons ago -- you may remember "I Kissed A Girl". That was hers. She's on record as not having made a penny from that song because of a bad record deal. Sure, they exist. But because of that one silly little song I found someone who's become one of my favorite artists and I've supported directly for years. The studio system is icky at its worst, but it also plays a role.
I'm happy to help. I was one of the author of the interconnection rules at FERC, and follow the issue fairly carefully now that I'm out in the "real world". If your focus is on large scale renewables, you need to read the proposal from California on interconnecting Locationally Constrained Resources (read: solar and wind in the middle of god-foresaken-nowhere) -- the final FERC order is here -- http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/ gi/wind.asp, but you could learn a lot from the pleadings filed by the CAISO and Califonia CPUC in the docket.
Anyway -- If you'd like to get in touch, I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. My email is asilverman at perkins coie dot com (all one word, obviously). I can talk about this stuff for hours. Depending on what specific aspects you're looking at, I might also be able to suggest other folks for you to talk to. And I certainly work for booze:)
A good place to start is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or your State Public Utilities Commission. See my response to the guy above for some additional thoughts. Federal energy law is rather complicated and can be completely stultifying to the uninitiated (or even those of who are initiated). Fundamentally, the principles are the same with telecom or cable. There is one "spectrum" in existence. There is only one set of electricity lines built in any one place. There is one physical telephone line strung to your house.
Okay, here are a couple of specific resources:
For generator interconnection my favorite orders discussing this are: Order No. 2006 (http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act /gi/small-gen.asp) and Order No. 2003 (http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act /gi/stnd-gen.asp).
For latest trends in transmission line open access: Order No. 890 (http://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/comm-meet/2007/0215 07/E-1.pdf)
For the Courts' take on the open access: Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. FERC, 225 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2000) and the Supreme Court case affirming the decision in New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1 (2002).
I have to warn you, all of these documents quickly get into the minutiae of energy regulation and are exceedingly complicated and detailed. There are probably some much more general resources out there, but I just don't both reading them too often;) If you have any specific questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them.
Excellent question. Actually, quite a few. In no particular order:
First, they are keeping electricity prices high by keeping competing sources of generation from interconnecting with the grid and supplying energy to the competitive energy markets. Interconnection of a generating facility can be prohibitively expensive when a utility exercises its monopoly power to discriminate against a generator. If you're truly interested in this issue, you can start with Order No. 2003, issued in 2003 by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/ gi/stnd-gen.asp.
Second, the affects of discrimination are particularly felt by smaller generators using innovative means to generate power. Solar, wind, tidal, biomass and other renewable facilities (that tend to be smaller and already on the margin of cost efficiency) are all greatly harmed by a utility's exercise of monopoly power. By keeping out competition, the utility makes it more difficult for all of us to get access to renewable generation. Again, FERC wrote orders specifically directed to help wind and small units interconnect for just this reason relying on open access principles: http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/ gi/wind.asp.
Third, every large user of electricity feels the pain brought about by lack of competition in the transmission sector. For some large industrial users of power, electricity constitutes a significant portion of their total materials costs. The aluminum industry, for example, is notorious for its need for electricty. Many chemical processors have similarly astronomical electricity bills. Prior to open access, these customers had only one source for both transmission service and generation service -- their local utility. That's why today, many large industrial users find it easier to pay for a tap to a wholesale transmission line than to just hook up with the local utility. On the transmission side, you can choose your supplier and pay the same standardized transmission rates that the utility itself pays. That's open access. At the local level you are often subject to whatever pound of flesh the local utility can extract.
Fourth, are things like smart metering, demand response, and smart transmission lines. A utility that doesn't have to compete in the open market has zero incentive to innovate and provide things like smart meters to their customers. Once competition set in (again in theory, anyway), there has been substantial innovation in each of these areas.
So actually, there's quite a bit going on. Price is always key in commercial-scale generation and all energy decisions are made on tiny margins (unless you're Enron) -- rather like telcom. When a monopoly uses its power to subtley prevent open access, costs go up and innovation goes down.
In the United States, the electric industry also has open access requirements that are comparable to those at issue here. Except, instead of "spectrum" the open access condition applies to power lines.
The US essentially has two types systems for moving electricity around: the Transmission System and the Distribution System. Transmission System lines are typically high voltage and used for wholesale sales of electricity. They are predominately federally regulated. Distribution System lines are typically lower voltage and used for distribution of power to retail end-use customers.
However the open access requirements are quite different. Transmission Systems are open to any user (with lots of strings, but in theory anyway). So someone who wants to sell power at wholesale essentially has the same right of access to the transmission lines as the utility that owns the lines does. In other words, the utility's transmission functions are no longer vertically integrated (at least in theory) with their power generation functions. This concept is known as "comparability." Sadly, the FCC rejected this type of open access.
For distribution systems, the utilities are still far more vertically integrated and largely control who has access to their power lines. While they still have to provide some level of access to competing users, there's no comparability concept and no sense that the utility is in the business of "renting" its system to all users and that its affiliated branches are just another user. Instead, we are going to continue to see integrated networks where the owner of the spectrum is able to stiffle innovation. Requiring that the purchaser of the spectrum re-sell it to competing companies would have guaranteed far more interesting uses of this spectrum.
Of course, allowing for phone transferability and the other items are good; but is a public safety system really the biggest concession that the FCC could extract? Yes, it is important. But nobody was going to object to giving fire fighters the communications equipment they needed.
Did anyone read the article? Seriously. I know this is/., but I see 227 comments so far and two that I came across didn't miss the point entirely.
These inventors are not trying to produce power on a commercial or even residential scale. They are creating an innovative urban design tool. Once you beyond all the silly slashdot pseudo physicists panning an idea they do not understand or even bother to read about, this is actually a great concept.
First, it has a wonderful potential to enlighten and enthrall children. I know when I was 8, I would have loved running across a floor and seeing something happen. Where's the wonder? The curiosity? Wouldn't you think it was neat (even today) to sit on a subway car and see an LCD light power-up? That's one of the projects they described in the artile. Or a public art project that changes based on the number of people nearby? Concerts are only the beginning. Think of that silly Dance-Dance-Revolution game that all the kiddies these days are playing. I wonder what some game developer could do with this idea? Maybe a monument to some tragedy? When you step across some empty space a little light flickers somewhere in the distance.... not lit by a sensor, but by you. I don't know, maybe I'm just a romantic, but this seems like a cool idea for creative artistic types to run with.
My second point is a little more serious. As an energy professional, I'm fascinated by the idea of combining lots of small, discrete sources of energy and combining them into a cohesive whole. One of the more interesting developments in the energy industry (and let me make clear, I am a lawyer, not an engineer) has been the development of the tidal power industry. Sure, there are a few working prototypes (rather like this floor) that generate some level of power, but are not even close to being cost effective. And there are some places (think the Bay of Fundy) where massive wave power makes power generation relatively trivial.
But to my mind, the most interesting tidal projects are relatively passive ocean-based technologies that rely on small changes in the current or tides to generate power from a number of relatively small discrete events -- rather like a thousand people moving over a floor. Micro-wind turbines are similar.
And it may be old hat now, but a few years ago it was considered quite the energy challenge to hook up a bunch of discrete wind turbines or other generation sources and regulate the voltage properly to generate usable power. Isn't that essentially what these people are doing?
Don't get me wrong -- I know the floor idea is a novelty trick. But it's a cool novelty trick and maybe, perhaps, someday will become more. Who knows? But this is not some vaporware project or some company trying to drum up its stock price. Save the venom for someone who deserves it.
I actually think this could be quite good. All the original Trek characters had really interesting back-stories that have not been thoroughly explored. There's Mr. Spock and Captain Pike. Kirk as the youngest captain ever in Starfleet. Scotty's being drummed out of the command corps.
In fact, one of my favorite Star Trek books growing up was one entitled Kobayashi Maru, where each of the senior staff takes turns recalling their experiences in Star Fleet academy. It primarily focuses on each of their experiences with the Kobayashi Maru simulation at the academy, but also delves into some personal stories about these folks as young officers about to become Starfleet officers. Sulu's story was extremely moving (at least from my teenage recollections) and well-written. Scotty's was hilarious, and Chekov's was quite good too.
Anyway, if you're looking for a blast-from-the... er, future, check it out:
Then again, I also remember Wesley's time at the academy. Ug, those were horrible TNG episodes! Yes, I know, I have the never-ending human capacity for self-delusion. What is it they say about second marriages? The triumph of hope over experience?
This I do not understand: why is it any less important that kids read Harry Potter as read Catch 22 or 1984? Why is any one of them better than Harry Potter? Because a bunch of professionals have all stepped up and proclaimed 1984, et al., classics?
Harry Potter is just as good as any of those. I would say it's actually better, but I can see where reasonable minds might disagree. But the point is you are trying to compare Beethoven to Bach. Is one better? Sure, the books you mentioned certainly use bigger words and require a more advanced vocabulary. Other than that?
One thing I need to make clear, however, is that I do not believe popularity (generally) equals quality or literary merit. With Harry Potter we have that rarest of all crossovers: a book that both plumbs the cathartic depths of great literature and sold 12 million copies.
Really, what is common to all these books? Global concepts of good and evil, life and death, and rebellion against an idiotic / repressive / evil establishment. Harry Potter takes on each of these topics and does it in style.
I don't mean to be objectionable to the OP's major point: which is how we can capialize on the cultural goodwill that HP has generated to encourage children to read. But where I do disagree is with the idea that HP is only a success if children read from the canon.
Children who enjoy reading will continue to read. But there's a sense of elitism I see from academia (in particular) that subtely disparages the accomplishment of a child who reads HP since it is too easy, or isn't serious literature, or whatever. No. This is wrong. Instead, we should be suggesting other books that children might enjoy (for instance, Garth Nix's Lirael series is excellent, IMO).
Sorry to pick on the OP, but this gets me.
== Former literature major, vorascious reader, lawyer, and purchaser of HP at 12:01 Friday night. (Please don't hold the third one against me.)
I have in the past been a moderately hard-core WoW played (Macbeth, level 70 Holy/Disc Priest on Bolderfist) and have bought gold in the past. The sad fact is that I enjoy playing, but do not have the free time to devote to farming and/or playing the stock market... er, Auction House. Simply put, my real-life time is in a more commodity than my RL money.
I have to say, however, that I don't buy gold often or in great quantities for the simple reason that I don't believe most of the gold advertisements I see out there and I don't trust the seller to come through on his end of the bargain without spreading my credit card information out there for everyone to see.
This system, however, sounds like a more trustworthy method of purchasing gold. I for one, intend to give it a shot. I like the idea of individual sellers rather than corporate farmers making the money, and I think increased competition will actually drive prices down. In essence, the free market shall triumph.
I understand that some people will view this as cheating, but that's not how I see it. This is not an economy with a finite monetary supply. The only limiting factor on weath is time. I see no problem with paying someone else for their time investment. I also anticipate that some folks will ask "why play a game if it's not fun." Well, I think most aspects of the game are fun. Lots of fun, in fact. But like most things, it's not a perfect system and I'm happy to pay a small amount of money to avoid the un-fun aspects of the game in order to concentrate on the fun stuff. Again, works for me.
The OP asks a very interesting question. To me, the article reads like a helpful list of the pros and cons for working for two different places. Both come across as reasonable places to work (for those of us with "high pressure" type jobs), although they each have their own foibles.
In short, I see nothing objectionable in this article; nothing evidencing a Machiavelian attempt to "stick it to" either side. Corporate confidentiality is certainly something I appreciate in my business; but it would never extend to such items as perks or office size or any of the other items.
I found the discussion of the "20 % time" particularly interesting because it matches how most law firms treat pro bono hours. Sure, you're entitled to do pro bono -- we even give your "billable hour credit" for pro bono work -- but make sure that not one iota of your existing workload suffers.
The 15 years was not entirely voluntary. The corrupt management of Walter Marks, the Superintendant at the time, drove the District into bankruptcy. As part of the debt restructering, IBM like every other creditor had to step aside and wait its turn.
In 1990, the District was over $40 million in debt. Currently, they are still $7 million behind, not including the IBM debts. Make no mistake, they are trying to pay their debts, but they still have a long way to go.
"Eighteen years ago, computers were just emerging as classroom learning tools promising improved instruction.
So when Walter Marks, then superintendent of the former Richmond Unified School District, ordered hundreds of IBM computers costing millions, he received praise from all corners.
But few knew the district was sinking deep into debt and didn't have the money to pay for the machines.
Now those computers -- like other poor financial decisions made by administrators in the late 1980s -- are coming back to haunt the West Contra Costa Unified School District."
And:
"Whether Marks, who made several questionable budget decisions as superintendent, actually had the authority to buy the machines remains unclear, said Fred Basalto, then the associate superintendent of business services. Marks did not return calls for comment."
See, the problem here is that these aren't politicians we are talking about -- these are school kids who are going to find that the old school budget is going to have an even bigger whole in it next year for crimes committed before they were born. $5 million is 20 additional trained teachers or thousands of textbooks.
Notably, questionable spending by Marks, the Superintendant at the time directly led to this disaster.
as well as budget shortfalls, were the main reasons the district spiraled into debt and eventually became the first school district in the state to file for bankruptcy.
In addition to ordering the computers it could not pay for, the district used certificates of participation -- bonds designated for use on capital improvement projects -- for operating expenses. It also authorized a 17 percent raise for teachers even though there was no money to fund it. And schools were converted to "System for Choice" magnet programs, a costly endeavor, and state integration funds were used to pay for that program -- a move later determined to be an improper use of funds; the district is still repaying the state.
The state bailed the district out in 1990 with a $9.5 million loan and again in 1991 with a $19.5 million loan. Neither was enough to prevent the district from filing for bankruptcy in 1991.
To date, West Contra Costa school district has paid back more than $31 million and is making $1.4 million in annual interest payments through 2018.
The district also makes almost $800,000 in annual payments on the certificates of participation debt it defaulted on during the budget crisis and $300,000 in annual payments to the state for misusing integration funds. In all, the district's current annual debt payments are more than $2.5 million -- the equivalent of about 10 teachers' salaries, including health and retirement benefits.
When the IBM debt is added to the mix next year, the district will pay $3.75 million annually, a price that many say the students can't afford.
Now I'm not necessarily advocating that IBM back down -- but enough the self-sactimonious comments about how children who weren't born when the computers were purchased should pay for the (likely) criminal ineptitude (or just plain criminal behavior) by the adults who were supposedly in charge.
The fact is, corrupt/incompetent leadership can happen anywhere. Isn't that what the social safety net is supposed to safeguard against? Which works the greater injustice -- requiring each school child in Contra Costra to pay $10 to pay back ancient computers? On requiring each Californian to pay $0.10? Or having IBM make a "voluntary" tax deductible contribution to the school district?
IBM's hands do not appear to be entirely clean here either. It is clear that it knew or should have known at the time that there was a problem with this deal and the School's ability to handle these computers. The article even says that it isn't clear whether the then-current Superintendant had the authority to enter into the deal and that IBM refused to take the computers back:
"This was submitted to us as kind of a joint venture where IBM could showcase computers as learning tools for students," Calton said. "It was supposed to have a PR angle for IBM."
When asked by the Times last week, the district could not track down invoices for the purchases, so it is unclear how many and what type of computers were ordered. But administrators agree the computers already were outdated when the district got them.
"I think they were out of date before (Marks) even decided to buy them," Basalto said. "Every one of them was obsolete; they were absolutely useless."
Where the computers ended up also is a mystery. Basalto recalls that
Slashdot Mirror
For those of you not up on Korean urban legands -- I present to you:
Fan Death: Menace from Above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_death and http://www.fandeath.net/
The best part of Fan Death is that fans made for the Korean market have automatic timing devices that are designed to prevent "accidental" Fan Death by shutting the fan off.
Are you in the United States? A Federal Employee? In a security-related field/agency? In management? Who told you it was illegal to organize?
The key is that civil service is not the traditional at-will employment. This is specifically designed to insulate people in your situation from political influence. It's particularly true when someone uses non-government time to make their statements.
The rules can be complicated and there are exceptions to the right to collective bargaining (particularly in law enforcement/national security agencies). You may fall into one of those exceptions, have a particular job, be within a probationary period, or otherwise be misinformed about your rights. I would never advise anyone to take an action that might subject you to retribution without consulting counsel first. However, in my years as a (volunteer) union lawyer for a federal agency, I saw many examples of the civil service system and collective bargaining in action. Sometimes it protected bad employees, other times it protected good ones trying to make a statement.
Anyone who has ever bad-mouthed the "lazy government unions" needs to think about this type of directive next time they utter those words. Because of Union protections, this type of directive is rarely enforceable against career government employees.
Suppose an employee defies this prohibition and speaks with the press. Management is constrained in how it can retaliate. Certainly it can deny future advancement opportunities, but most employees are semi-immune to this type of intimidation because of the civil service system.
Don't get me wrong -- the same protection that apply to a conscientious employee who feels the need to speak with the press also protects (to a limited degree) someone who sits and plays solitaire all day. But Unions and the civil service system shine at moments like this.
Why? Because the law requires it. Please do not mix up what you think the law should be and whether a judge is doing a good job interpreting the laws as they are.
Section 505 the Copyright Act states:
505. Remedies for infringement: Costs and attorney's fees
In any civil action under this title, the court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the United States or an officer thereof. Except as otherwise provided by this title, the court may also award a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs.
Are you familiar with what a paralegal is? Most importantly, a paralegal is not a lawyer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paralegal
Interesting point. The inaccuracies in the drug war laws are legion and we could have an entire thread about that. But in regards to attorney's fees, I have a couple of thoughts.
First is that the statutes and resulting case law are relatively specific on the standards that are used to determine "reasonable" attorney's fees. I suspect that the "logic" you laid out with respect to LSD is completely in keeping with the language of the statute (which itself sounds like it may be flawed). This is not coincidence. The courts are very good at applying the same law uniformly in most cases and there is an elaborate appellate system designed to iron out inconsistancies in the interpretation of the same law. Due process requires that every person caught with LSD is held to the same standard (regardless of whether that standard is reasonable). Here, attorney's fees are intended to be consistent across the system and the standards are thus fairly well laid out. Of course, humans will always react differently to the same set of facts, but the system largely tries to discourage that in many instances.
The second thing to keep in mind is that most lawyers have limited scientific knowledge. Attorney's fees are something most judges are intimately familiar with. But evaluating the potency of LSD? Not even close.
Just a few off-the-cuff thoughts!
In short: It is perfectly normal and accepted to bill for paralegal time. But in this particular case, the Judge made a rather detailed finding that these specific bills were excessive.
Please read my post. I said "I would exepect to hear nothing else from an attorney vigorously pursuing her case." The "her" I refer to is Marilyn Barringer-Thomson, the attorney for Ms. Foster. NYCL is Ray Beckerman and is a male (to the best of my knowledge and belief). I fully expect Ms. Barringet-Thomson will be making the same argument.
But more importantly, you are looking for an unbiased analysis from someone whose blog is titled "Recording Industry vs. People" and subtitled "About the RIAA's attempt to monopolize digital music by redefining copyright law, through the commencement of tens of thousands of extortionate lawsuits against ordinary working people." I respect Mr. Beckerman's work, but he is hardly "an unrelated lawyer". Moreover, it would be a serious breach of legal ethics if he did represent Ms. Foster and then went and blabbed about it in this way.
I am not all sympathetic to the RIAA, but someone's critical reading skills need a little work.
I suggest most people taking the time to read the 16 page order will be convinced that, regardless of whether the Judge reached the precisely "correct" dollar amount, he certainly gave it due consideration.
One thing I found particularly interesting was that the fee agreement between Ms. Foster and her attorneys called for a rate of $175 per hour. The requested reimbursement was for $225 per hour. While a fee arrangement is not binding, it is certainly instructive to the court as to the actual cost to Ms. Foster. Much of the reduction from $100k to $68k was from this one change.
Similarly, the Judge refused to allow Ms. Foster's attorneys to bill $80 per hour for work by a paralegal. It seems perfectly reasonable to me not to include these costs. Basically, the Judge went through each bill and evaluated its reasonableness. Exactly my managing partner does to me each month and more importantly, exactly what the law requires in copyright cases.
There is a law against frivolous appeals, and an appeal from this judgment would be frivolous.
First, of course the other side's appeal is frivolous! Have you ever heard opposing counsel say anything other than that? They teach that in remedial lawyering! I would expect to hear nothing else from an attorney vigorously pursuing her case.
Second, if Ms. Foster and her attorneys believe that an appeal is her best interest, she has every right to pursue such an appeal.
Third, you are correct that there is a law against frivolous appeals. If an unbiased court finds that an appeal is truly frivolous (and that's a pretty high burden) the court may again order attorney's fees, sanction the attorneys involved, or even report them to the state bar for disciplinary action.
Remember, frivolous =/= stupid or dumb or unlikely to succeed. Appealing a judgment in favor of the other side is rarely going to be considered frivolous under the legal standard.
For the record: Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
(b) Representations to Court. By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;
(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.
(c) Sanctions. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation.
(1) How Initiated.
(A) By Motion. A motion for sanctions under this rule shall be made separately from other motions or requests and shall describe the specific conduct alleged to violate subdivision (b). It shall be served as provided in Rule 5, but shall not be filed with or presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion (or such other period as the court may prescribe), the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. If warranted, the court may award to the party prevailing on the motion the reasonable expenses and attorney's fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion. Absent exceptional circumstances, a law firm shall be held jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, associates, and employees.
(B) On Court's Initiative. On its own initiative, the court may enter an order describing the specific conduct that appears to violate subdivision (b) and directing an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why it has not violated subdivision (b) with respect thereto.
(2) Nature of Sanction; Limitations. A sanction imposed for violation of this rule shall be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. Subject to the limitations in subparagraphs (A) and (B), the sanction may consist of, or include, directives of a nonmonetary nature, an order to pay a pena
Enough with the outrage people. Welcome to Law School 101. For your first class in civil procedure, we will discuss entry of judgment. Here are the basic steps common to almost all legal proceedings (simplified):
1. Sue someone.
2. Have a trial / reach settlement.
3. Reach a verdict.
4. Judge enters judgment. Note: This is not a "final" judgment. Judgment only becomes final after the period for appeal has ended.
5. Losing party has right to appeal or it may simply pay.
6. Appeal is processed and after all appellate rights have been "exhausted", FINAL judgment is entered.
7. Winning party seeks formal entry of judgment in a separate proceeding (usually called "enrolling" the judgment, although that term varies by jurisdiction).
7. ???
8. Collect judgment.
9. Profit.
In short, I know RIAA are a bunch of scum-sucking *ahem* lawyers, but this whole case is premised on a serious misunderstanding of how the legal system works. Any one of us could go through the same process and draw out any case to the same degree. Most reasonable parties settleup after the initial entry of judgment, but there is certainly no requirement that a party forego its legal rights just to be "nice."
In fact, it somewhat makes sense that things work this way. Put aside your dislike for RIAA for a second. Assume that a losing party justifiably feels that it was wronged by the Judge's decision and wishes to appeal. Does it make sense that they should be required to pay the judgment before the decision has been reviewed by a higher court? In order to protect against the danger of default, it is common to request that the losing party be required to post security in an escrow account during the pendancy of the appeal.
In short: I admire the marketing arm of this particular law firm, but really, nothing to see here.
I actually agree with this. Perhaps my idealism is fading as I hit the wrong side of 30, but I don't understand why anyone would feel they have the right to wholesale steal music. It's not that expensive to buy mainstream music off the internet. Even stores provide some added value.
Moreover, there are so many wonderful low cost sources of unusual hard-to-find music these days that I really no longer buy into the it's-too-hard-to-find-so-I-must-pirate argument. Certainly, the music by the garage band formed by your best friend in kindergarden who you then lost touch with may not be available on iTunes.... but he's also not going to sue you. He's also probably not trying to make a living off his music.
One thing that gets me is the argument that a musician isn't being harmed by music piracy. This is simply false. You can argue about the degree of harm, but so what?* Every song that's sold results at the very least in more publicity and bargaining power for the artist -- even in the rare case they don't receive any actual $ for their music. Stealing music from an independent struggling musician is just unconscionable. I'm certainly not going to lose sleep over Brittany Spears losing out on a few sales; but where do you draw the line? These days, artists have a choice whether or not to sign a big label deal -- this is not 20 years ago where it's play ball with the big boys or go home.
Finally, just to add something of value to this post -- I recently came across a website called http://amiestreet.com/. This is an amazing example of what indie music can be. Looking around on this site, I came across obscure little bands that I swore I would never hear from again, and yet here they are, trying to make a few bucks. What possible excuse do I have of stealing from these folks? Look at the prices -- I think I paid as much as 75 cents for one song and as little as $1.12 for an album.
Really folks, don't you think piracy is so 1999?
* My favorite story is from Jill Sobule, who is a truly gifted singer/song-writer. http://www.jillsobule.com/home.html She had one breakthrough hit many moons ago -- you may remember "I Kissed A Girl". That was hers. She's on record as not having made a penny from that song because of a bad record deal. Sure, they exist. But because of that one silly little song I found someone who's become one of my favorite artists and I've supported directly for years. The studio system is icky at its worst, but it also plays a role.
I'm happy to help. I was one of the author of the interconnection rules at FERC, and follow the issue fairly carefully now that I'm out in the "real world". If your focus is on large scale renewables, you need to read the proposal from California on interconnecting Locationally Constrained Resources (read: solar and wind in the middle of god-foresaken-nowhere) -- the final FERC order is here -- http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/ gi/wind.asp, but you could learn a lot from the pleadings filed by the CAISO and Califonia CPUC in the docket.
:)
Anyway -- If you'd like to get in touch, I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. My email is asilverman at perkins coie dot com (all one word, obviously). I can talk about this stuff for hours. Depending on what specific aspects you're looking at, I might also be able to suggest other folks for you to talk to. And I certainly work for booze
Good luck!
A good place to start is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or your State Public Utilities Commission. See my response to the guy above for some additional thoughts. Federal energy law is rather complicated and can be completely stultifying to the uninitiated (or even those of who are initiated). Fundamentally, the principles are the same with telecom or cable. There is one "spectrum" in existence. There is only one set of electricity lines built in any one place. There is one physical telephone line strung to your house.
t /gi/small-gen.asp) and Order No. 2003 (http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act /gi/stnd-gen.asp).
5 07/E-1.pdf)
;) If you have any specific questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them.
Okay, here are a couple of specific resources:
For generator interconnection my favorite orders discussing this are: Order No. 2006 (http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-ac
For latest trends in transmission line open access: Order No. 890 (http://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/comm-meet/2007/021
For the Courts' take on the open access: Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. FERC, 225 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2000) and the Supreme Court case affirming the decision in New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1 (2002).
I have to warn you, all of these documents quickly get into the minutiae of energy regulation and are exceedingly complicated and detailed. There are probably some much more general resources out there, but I just don't both reading them too often
Excellent question. Actually, quite a few. In no particular order:
/ gi/stnd-gen.asp.
/ gi/wind.asp.
First, they are keeping electricity prices high by keeping competing sources of generation from interconnecting with the grid and supplying energy to the competitive energy markets. Interconnection of a generating facility can be prohibitively expensive when a utility exercises its monopoly power to discriminate against a generator. If you're truly interested in this issue, you can start with Order No. 2003, issued in 2003 by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act
Second, the affects of discrimination are particularly felt by smaller generators using innovative means to generate power. Solar, wind, tidal, biomass and other renewable facilities (that tend to be smaller and already on the margin of cost efficiency) are all greatly harmed by a utility's exercise of monopoly power. By keeping out competition, the utility makes it more difficult for all of us to get access to renewable generation. Again, FERC wrote orders specifically directed to help wind and small units interconnect for just this reason relying on open access principles: http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act
Third, every large user of electricity feels the pain brought about by lack of competition in the transmission sector. For some large industrial users of power, electricity constitutes a significant portion of their total materials costs. The aluminum industry, for example, is notorious for its need for electricty. Many chemical processors have similarly astronomical electricity bills. Prior to open access, these customers had only one source for both transmission service and generation service -- their local utility. That's why today, many large industrial users find it easier to pay for a tap to a wholesale transmission line than to just hook up with the local utility. On the transmission side, you can choose your supplier and pay the same standardized transmission rates that the utility itself pays. That's open access. At the local level you are often subject to whatever pound of flesh the local utility can extract.
Fourth, are things like smart metering, demand response, and smart transmission lines. A utility that doesn't have to compete in the open market has zero incentive to innovate and provide things like smart meters to their customers. Once competition set in (again in theory, anyway), there has been substantial innovation in each of these areas.
So actually, there's quite a bit going on. Price is always key in commercial-scale generation and all energy decisions are made on tiny margins (unless you're Enron) -- rather like telcom. When a monopoly uses its power to subtley prevent open access, costs go up and innovation goes down.
In the United States, the electric industry also has open access requirements that are comparable to those at issue here. Except, instead of "spectrum" the open access condition applies to power lines.
The US essentially has two types systems for moving electricity around: the Transmission System and the Distribution System. Transmission System lines are typically high voltage and used for wholesale sales of electricity. They are predominately federally regulated. Distribution System lines are typically lower voltage and used for distribution of power to retail end-use customers.
However the open access requirements are quite different. Transmission Systems are open to any user (with lots of strings, but in theory anyway). So someone who wants to sell power at wholesale essentially has the same right of access to the transmission lines as the utility that owns the lines does. In other words, the utility's transmission functions are no longer vertically integrated (at least in theory) with their power generation functions. This concept is known as "comparability." Sadly, the FCC rejected this type of open access.
For distribution systems, the utilities are still far more vertically integrated and largely control who has access to their power lines. While they still have to provide some level of access to competing users, there's no comparability concept and no sense that the utility is in the business of "renting" its system to all users and that its affiliated branches are just another user. Instead, we are going to continue to see integrated networks where the owner of the spectrum is able to stiffle innovation. Requiring that the purchaser of the spectrum re-sell it to competing companies would have guaranteed far more interesting uses of this spectrum.
Of course, allowing for phone transferability and the other items are good; but is a public safety system really the biggest concession that the FCC could extract? Yes, it is important. But nobody was going to object to giving fire fighters the communications equipment they needed.
Sad.
Did anyone read the article? Seriously. I know this is /., but I see 227 comments so far and two that I came across didn't miss the point entirely.
These inventors are not trying to produce power on a commercial or even residential scale. They are creating an innovative urban design tool. Once you beyond all the silly slashdot pseudo physicists panning an idea they do not understand or even bother to read about, this is actually a great concept.
First, it has a wonderful potential to enlighten and enthrall children. I know when I was 8, I would have loved running across a floor and seeing something happen. Where's the wonder? The curiosity? Wouldn't you think it was neat (even today) to sit on a subway car and see an LCD light power-up? That's one of the projects they described in the artile. Or a public art project that changes based on the number of people nearby? Concerts are only the beginning. Think of that silly Dance-Dance-Revolution game that all the kiddies these days are playing. I wonder what some game developer could do with this idea? Maybe a monument to some tragedy? When you step across some empty space a little light flickers somewhere in the distance.... not lit by a sensor, but by you. I don't know, maybe I'm just a romantic, but this seems like a cool idea for creative artistic types to run with.
My second point is a little more serious. As an energy professional, I'm fascinated by the idea of combining lots of small, discrete sources of energy and combining them into a cohesive whole. One of the more interesting developments in the energy industry (and let me make clear, I am a lawyer, not an engineer) has been the development of the tidal power industry. Sure, there are a few working prototypes (rather like this floor) that generate some level of power, but are not even close to being cost effective. And there are some places (think the Bay of Fundy) where massive wave power makes power generation relatively trivial.
But to my mind, the most interesting tidal projects are relatively passive ocean-based technologies that rely on small changes in the current or tides to generate power from a number of relatively small discrete events -- rather like a thousand people moving over a floor. Micro-wind turbines are similar.
And it may be old hat now, but a few years ago it was considered quite the energy challenge to hook up a bunch of discrete wind turbines or other generation sources and regulate the voltage properly to generate usable power. Isn't that essentially what these people are doing?
Don't get me wrong -- I know the floor idea is a novelty trick. But it's a cool novelty trick and maybe, perhaps, someday will become more. Who knows? But this is not some vaporware project or some company trying to drum up its stock price. Save the venom for someone who deserves it.
I actually think this could be quite good. All the original Trek characters had really interesting back-stories that have not been thoroughly explored. There's Mr. Spock and Captain Pike. Kirk as the youngest captain ever in Starfleet. Scotty's being drummed out of the command corps.
... er, future, check it out:
o k/dp/0671658174/ref=sr_1_2/103-9039922-7888637?ie= UTF8&s=books&qid=1185566723&sr=8-2
In fact, one of my favorite Star Trek books growing up was one entitled Kobayashi Maru, where each of the senior staff takes turns recalling their experiences in Star Fleet academy. It primarily focuses on each of their experiences with the Kobayashi Maru simulation at the academy, but also delves into some personal stories about these folks as young officers about to become Starfleet officers. Sulu's story was extremely moving (at least from my teenage recollections) and well-written. Scotty's was hilarious, and Chekov's was quite good too.
Anyway, if you're looking for a blast-from-the
http://www.amazon.com/Kobayashi-Maru-Star-Trek-Bo
Then again, I also remember Wesley's time at the academy. Ug, those were horrible TNG episodes! Yes, I know, I have the never-ending human capacity for self-delusion. What is it they say about second marriages? The triumph of hope over experience?
This I do not understand: why is it any less important that kids read Harry Potter as read Catch 22 or 1984? Why is any one of them better than Harry Potter? Because a bunch of professionals have all stepped up and proclaimed 1984, et al., classics?
Harry Potter is just as good as any of those. I would say it's actually better, but I can see where reasonable minds might disagree. But the point is you are trying to compare Beethoven to Bach. Is one better? Sure, the books you mentioned certainly use bigger words and require a more advanced vocabulary. Other than that?
One thing I need to make clear, however, is that I do not believe popularity (generally) equals quality or literary merit. With Harry Potter we have that rarest of all crossovers: a book that both plumbs the cathartic depths of great literature and sold 12 million copies.
Really, what is common to all these books? Global concepts of good and evil, life and death, and rebellion against an idiotic / repressive / evil establishment. Harry Potter takes on each of these topics and does it in style.
I don't mean to be objectionable to the OP's major point: which is how we can capialize on the cultural goodwill that HP has generated to encourage children to read. But where I do disagree is with the idea that HP is only a success if children read from the canon.
Children who enjoy reading will continue to read. But there's a sense of elitism I see from academia (in particular) that subtely disparages the accomplishment of a child who reads HP since it is too easy, or isn't serious literature, or whatever. No. This is wrong. Instead, we should be suggesting other books that children might enjoy (for instance, Garth Nix's Lirael series is excellent, IMO).
Sorry to pick on the OP, but this gets me.
== Former literature major, vorascious reader, lawyer, and purchaser of HP at 12:01 Friday night. (Please don't hold the third one against me.)
I have in the past been a moderately hard-core WoW played (Macbeth, level 70 Holy/Disc Priest on Bolderfist) and have bought gold in the past. The sad fact is that I enjoy playing, but do not have the free time to devote to farming and/or playing the stock market... er, Auction House. Simply put, my real-life time is in a more commodity than my RL money.
I have to say, however, that I don't buy gold often or in great quantities for the simple reason that I don't believe most of the gold advertisements I see out there and I don't trust the seller to come through on his end of the bargain without spreading my credit card information out there for everyone to see.
This system, however, sounds like a more trustworthy method of purchasing gold. I for one, intend to give it a shot. I like the idea of individual sellers rather than corporate farmers making the money, and I think increased competition will actually drive prices down. In essence, the free market shall triumph.
I understand that some people will view this as cheating, but that's not how I see it. This is not an economy with a finite monetary supply. The only limiting factor on weath is time. I see no problem with paying someone else for their time investment. I also anticipate that some folks will ask "why play a game if it's not fun." Well, I think most aspects of the game are fun. Lots of fun, in fact. But like most things, it's not a perfect system and I'm happy to pay a small amount of money to avoid the un-fun aspects of the game in order to concentrate on the fun stuff. Again, works for me.
The OP asks a very interesting question. To me, the article reads like a helpful list of the pros and cons for working for two different places. Both come across as reasonable places to work (for those of us with "high pressure" type jobs), although they each have their own foibles.
In short, I see nothing objectionable in this article; nothing evidencing a Machiavelian attempt to "stick it to" either side. Corporate confidentiality is certainly something I appreciate in my business; but it would never extend to such items as perks or office size or any of the other items.
I found the discussion of the "20 % time" particularly interesting because it matches how most law firms treat pro bono hours. Sure, you're entitled to do pro bono -- we even give your "billable hour credit" for pro bono work -- but make sure that not one iota of your existing workload suffers.
I hate to be flip like that, but it really (sadly) is often that simple. I don't see that IBM really has any realistic options.
The 15 years was not entirely voluntary. The corrupt management of Walter Marks, the Superintendant at the time, drove the District into bankruptcy. As part of the debt restructering, IBM like every other creditor had to step aside and wait its turn.
i fied_School_District
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Contra_Costa_Un
In 1990, the District was over $40 million in debt. Currently, they are still $7 million behind, not including the IBM debts. Make no mistake, they are trying to pay their debts, but they still have a long way to go.
Here you go:
Walter Marks.
"Eighteen years ago, computers were just emerging as classroom learning tools promising improved instruction.
So when Walter Marks, then superintendent of the former Richmond Unified School District, ordered hundreds of IBM computers costing millions, he received praise from all corners.
But few knew the district was sinking deep into debt and didn't have the money to pay for the machines.
Now those computers -- like other poor financial decisions made by administrators in the late 1980s -- are coming back to haunt the West Contra Costa Unified School District."
And:
"Whether Marks, who made several questionable budget decisions as superintendent, actually had the authority to buy the machines remains unclear, said Fred Basalto, then the associate superintendent of business services. Marks did not return calls for comment."
http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_5727158
Now what?
This article http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_5727158 has considerably more detail than the TFA.
Notably, questionable spending by Marks, the Superintendant at the time directly led to this disaster.
Now I'm not necessarily advocating that IBM back down -- but enough the self-sactimonious comments about how children who weren't born when the computers were purchased should pay for the (likely) criminal ineptitude (or just plain criminal behavior) by the adults who were supposedly in charge.
The fact is, corrupt/incompetent leadership can happen anywhere. Isn't that what the social safety net is supposed to safeguard against? Which works the greater injustice -- requiring each school child in Contra Costra to pay $10 to pay back ancient computers? On requiring each Californian to pay $0.10? Or having IBM make a "voluntary" tax deductible contribution to the school district?
IBM's hands do not appear to be entirely clean here either. It is clear that it knew or should have known at the time that there was a problem with this deal and the School's ability to handle these computers. The article even says that it isn't clear whether the then-current Superintendant had the authority to enter into the deal and that IBM refused to take the computers back: