What's to escalate? When the schedule flat out doesn't work, and your calls to customer service get handed over to a customer svc agent's voice mail, unless they want to talk to you, and they don't... that was what happened with us, I have no idea what happened with them... escalate doesn't help.
1) Escalate to the purchasing decision-maker on your end. 2) As purchasing decision-maker, call one or more decision-makers on the other end. Service, but if you don't get through right away, then whoever at the company you have a relationship with (sales rep? development engineer?), who will know who to call. 3) If that fails, call and email company CEO. 3a) if that fails, company board of directors. 4) Document, document, document, succinctly, what occurred in terms of the company's response. If they are still being unhelpful, send them that document. 5) If they continue to be unhelpful, point out that it will be necessary to share said document in your press release about why prisoners are free. 6) If they continue to be unhelpful, do so. Run press release past your lawyers first to be sure you will win any defamation lawsuit to follow.
Not even close reasonable; the lawyers are going to take half.
Then the government is going to take 33%.
That leaves the engineers with about a week of salary--probably actually less.
6 months salary for the ones who didn't loose their jobs+ 1 year of compensation for any who lost their job because of this + lawyers fees would be reasonable.
Lawyer's fees generally come out of the pocket of the side hiring the lawyers--it doesn't go into the calculation, unless we change that rule on a systemic level.
Six months *may* be reasonable, but it's a math problem, and a very speculative one--what would their salaries have been *without* the anti-competitive practices?
I'm keenly aware this statement by the US House can be circumvented in some fashion. These folks they're dealing with are secret agencies.
At the very least the representatives still have to pay me some lip service. Hell, some of them may have retained the ability to care.
Either way, it's a small victory for the Republic.
Forget the lip service. Just forget it. When you get involved in power politics at the level you're talking about, what happens *in the meeting* is what matters, and what you talk about outside the meeting is the window dressing.
Personalities change when you go into the back room. So do goals. People beg, borrow, steal, lie, blackmail, and it's all about what you can do for me, what I can do for you, what we can deliver, how we can ensure goal X gets done, and goal X isn't what we tell the people outside the room.
You're selling a narrative to people outside the room.
$5070. It almost certainly isn't enough to make the engineers whole, but it is more than nothing and not completely unrespectable. (They didn't lose their entire salary, but did lose some money.)
It is a *settlement* proposal, though. It's not supposed to be enough to make them whole--just more reasonable for both sides than fighting.
If Uber were really offering legitimate competition, I would be more sympathetic. But they're partly undercutting existing taxis through ridiculous things like using drivers who lack commercial vehicle insurance, which is rather irresponsible.
Competition doesn't have to be fair to be legitimate. Cab companies also generally underinsure to the extent permitted by law. In New York, they carry some ridiculously low number like $25,000 of insurance, and each cab is incorporated so that there's no way to get to the company that actually owns them.
Fundamentally, if Uber can insure at least comparably to cab companies, are roughly as reliable, and can offer an equivalent service cheaper, they *should* win.
Tenure exists to ensure that professors can pursue unpopular lines of inquiry without being troubled by university politics. It makes no sense in primary or secondary education.
Tenure exists because senior faculty exerts substantial political power at universities and those universities compete for faculty. The theoretical reason--unpopular lines of inquiry--is mostly a crock. Tenure is much more likely to protect an incompetent professor than a dischordant one.
At the secondary or elementary level, the only real rationale is job security. Teachers don't get paid as well as they should be and tenure is something they can be given that doesn't show up as a big item in the budget.
Keep in mind that this was in the First Circuit. (Liberal circuit, includes Boston, case law there based on cops trying to stop someone from filming *on Boston Common*). If you try this in Alabama, Nevada, or LA you are more likely to get the shit kicked out of you by the cops and then for them to arrest you.
And of course they are blaming the economic damage on getting caught as opposed to, well, what they were doing.
Of *course* they are. They're responsible for the consequences--but they also are right, Snowden's whistleblowing was also a cause. He has (with them) done probably billions of dollars of harm to the US tech industry.
Without him, it wouldn't have happened. Without them, it wouldn't have happened. They both did it for motives that they believed justified the cost.
That's all true, but manufacturers go to great lengths to inflate the figure.
I do wonder how someone so odiously dishonest as to participate in the practices you describe could ever become an engineer for a successful international brand.
Then, as someone who has been self-employed since 2003 and who has seen such a huge change in the way clients behave over the past decade, I wonder whether odious dishonesty today is a job requirement.
You have it backwards. They move toward dishonesty because they are working in a culture that (without calling it dishonesty) does dishonest things. For example, recently there was a memo in the News showing that GM prohibited engineers from using certain words like "defect" so that those words wouldn't show up in future lawsuits. This process is insidious--by itself it doesn't *have* to be dishonest, but it distorts the truth enough to make people a little more comfortable with distorting the truth.
There isn't much that can be done in response to Russia. Military action is out of the question: One does not start an open war with a nuclear superpower lightly. Economic sanctions hurt both sites, and Europe needs Russia as much as Russia needs Europe. They supply the gas that keeps the lights on.
Military action is not out of the question--there is simply some criteria for it that has not been met yet. If Putin believed he could swallow up all of Europe, he would. He's taking Ukraine piecemeal to give his forces time to consolidate power and to make it seem like smaller moves, each of which is more tolerable. At some point he will move beyond Ukraine, and if he moves too far military force or a demonstrated willingness to use it (i.e. U.S. or British boots on the ground in the next likely targets) will be a necessary response.
Prisons break laws constantly, they are expected to violate rights, violate laws, etc... they are there only for punishing poor people.
Show me millionaires that are in prison that go to general population prison.
Um... not quite. Rich people are less likely to go to jail period (because they can afford better lawyers, are targeted less, and less frequently have incentive to commit crimes like bank robbery and burglary that get people caught). You really have to look at rich people who are convicted of burglary and poor people who are convicted of burglary before saying that the jails really just exist to punish the poor.
As for rights, yes, prisons frequently violate rights, but consider the *flipside* of that. In the United States, we make it relatively easy for criminals to *sue* for violation of their rights. So pretty much *every* prison guard, no matter how good or honest, gets sued by prisoners. It's not like prisons are trying to violate rights--they're generally trying to not get sued.
What professional habits did you develop that helped you be successful enough to hold a high position in one of the world's important scientific institutions?
Actually, Comcast is severely undervalued right now, so their investors stand to profit either way.
Their EPS shows about a 5% return on market value, with near 20% annual earnings growth (geometric mean over five years, although mostly in the last three), but their market value is actually less than their equity. Now a lot of the equity is intangibles, but even if you take out fifty billion or so, they could still earn back their market value within three years.
(Pretax earnings are around 3B/quarter, total market cap is around 22B).
In the United States, prosecutors have the job of sensationalizing in order to get a conviction and longer sentences. They are spinning a story they design out of the facts, so they pick the facts which make someone seem as guilty as possible and of as big a crime as possible.
The defense attorney's job is to whittle that down. The jury has the job of guessing the truth from two competing false narratives (the prosecution and the defense). Only the judge can ask witnesses questions impartially, and he or she generally doesn't do that a lot.
They are allowed to start counting the votes before the voting ends ??? We only spawn 5.5 time zones but that`s still not allowed and well enforced.
They generally are, although it's up to the particular state. More importantly, the *exit polls*, which are not the actual vote but in which people say who they voted for, come out relatively quickly and can influence later voting.
Actually, the results here are important legally. One important persuasive argument in free speech cases is the chilling effect on speech. Empirical data showing that people do *not* engage in certain speech because of a government practice is useful for lawyers arguing against the illegality of those practices.
While there is a First Amendment issue here, the government almost certainly wins.
Time, place, and manner restrictions on first amendment activity are usually Constitutional so long as there is some rational basis for them. A reasonable time, place, and manner restriction with a public safety rationale would almost *never* be struck down.
When someone in the government violates Constitutional Rights in America, two things happen: First, evidence that comes from that violation is inadmissible in court. Second, the person whose rights have been violated can sue the pants off the government.
The US constitution only protects individuals from actions taken by their government or appointees.
Yup. We're talking about the FBI here, so that qualifies.
It is more complicated because of a massive fraud on the part of the prosecution to pretend that the information is not based on that violation.
Citation needed. What constitutional violations are you referring to here?
Google it; it's lying around if you look for it. Look up parallel construction of cases and read up a bit on deliberate withholding of evidence from the court.
It is also more complicated because juries, as a whole, care less about the government having violated your constitutional rights when you are a criminal.
US Juries have no authority to determine whether or not a person's constitutional rights have been violated or not. A judge determines whether any evidence obtained is admissible or not and the jury deliberates based on that decision and the evidence.
Wrong in this context. Section 1983 actions are what you bring when you file a civil claim against the government for having your rights violated. Juries decide issues of fact in Section 1983 cases. Therefore juries devaluing accused criminals results in less protection of constitutional rights.
It is also more complicated because when they get caught doing something bad enough, cops usually offer a deal where you won't sue and they won't prosecute.
Citation needed please.
Haven't looked through the literature for it--you are welcome to look. I am personally aware of it happening to someone who the cops beat the shit out of.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
The US Constitution requlates state goverement since the passage of the 14th Amendment. A New York free speach law can not limit the speach of the owners and employees of Baidu. They are allowed to have bias.
They are allowed to have Bias if they admit they have Bias. If they claim not to have bias, or not to be sensoring results, they may be committing fraud / violating truth-in-advertising laws.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do you think violent criminals released from jail due to crappy software would be somehow mad at the software company?
Oh, the terror! "Emergency improve your implementation beyond what I probably paid for or else I'll send over fifteen guys to buy you beer!"
What's to escalate? When the schedule flat out doesn't work, and your calls to customer service get handed over to a customer svc agent's voice mail, unless they want to talk to you, and they don't... that was what happened with us, I have no idea what happened with them... escalate doesn't help.
1) Escalate to the purchasing decision-maker on your end.
2) As purchasing decision-maker, call one or more decision-makers on the other end. Service, but if you don't get through right away, then whoever at the company you have a relationship with (sales rep? development engineer?), who will know who to call.
3) If that fails, call and email company CEO. 3a) if that fails, company board of directors.
4) Document, document, document, succinctly, what occurred in terms of the company's response. If they are still being unhelpful, send them that document.
5) If they continue to be unhelpful, point out that it will be necessary to share said document in your press release about why prisoners are free.
6) If they continue to be unhelpful, do so. Run press release past your lawyers first to be sure you will win any defamation lawsuit to follow.
Not even close reasonable; the lawyers are going to take half.
Then the government is going to take 33%.
That leaves the engineers with about a week of salary--probably actually less.
6 months salary for the ones who didn't loose their jobs+ 1 year of compensation for any who lost their job because of this + lawyers fees would be reasonable.
Lawyer's fees generally come out of the pocket of the side hiring the lawyers--it doesn't go into the calculation, unless we change that rule on a systemic level.
Six months *may* be reasonable, but it's a math problem, and a very speculative one--what would their salaries have been *without* the anti-competitive practices?
I'm keenly aware this statement by the US House can be circumvented in some fashion. These folks they're dealing with are secret agencies.
At the very least the representatives still have to pay me some lip service. Hell, some of them may have retained the ability to care.
Either way, it's a small victory for the Republic.
Forget the lip service. Just forget it. When you get involved in power politics at the level you're talking about, what happens *in the meeting* is what matters, and what you talk about outside the meeting is the window dressing.
Personalities change when you go into the back room. So do goals. People beg, borrow, steal, lie, blackmail, and it's all about what you can do for me, what I can do for you, what we can deliver, how we can ensure goal X gets done, and goal X isn't what we tell the people outside the room.
You're selling a narrative to people outside the room.
$324.5 million / 64000 workers = $507.03
These tech workers are getting fuck either way.
$5070. It almost certainly isn't enough to make the engineers whole, but it is more than nothing and not completely unrespectable. (They didn't lose their entire salary, but did lose some money.)
It is a *settlement* proposal, though. It's not supposed to be enough to make them whole--just more reasonable for both sides than fighting.
If you had something that was provably the first wheel, it would go for more than the price of a wheel.
Maybe Microsoft could increase their marketshare by 50%: And get to 1.5% of the market.
3.2% according to comscore as of January. In the major European markets, they are at 10%.
Well, that's one way to handle repeat articles, delete the original one.
It's almost as if we were talking about the Chinese Government...
If Uber were really offering legitimate competition, I would be more sympathetic. But they're partly undercutting existing taxis through ridiculous things like using drivers who lack commercial vehicle insurance, which is rather irresponsible.
Competition doesn't have to be fair to be legitimate. Cab companies also generally underinsure to the extent permitted by law. In New York, they carry some ridiculously low number like $25,000 of insurance, and each cab is incorporated so that there's no way to get to the company that actually owns them.
Fundamentally, if Uber can insure at least comparably to cab companies, are roughly as reliable, and can offer an equivalent service cheaper, they *should* win.
Tenure exists to ensure that professors can pursue unpopular lines of inquiry without being troubled by university politics. It makes no sense in primary or secondary education.
Tenure exists because senior faculty exerts substantial political power at universities and those universities compete for faculty. The theoretical reason--unpopular lines of inquiry--is mostly a crock. Tenure is much more likely to protect an incompetent professor than a dischordant one.
At the secondary or elementary level, the only real rationale is job security. Teachers don't get paid as well as they should be and tenure is something they can be given that doesn't show up as a big item in the budget.
Next you'll say that Turing machines were a thought experiment and never meant to perform calculations in the real world.
the Turing Test is much more of a soft science test. It's at least as much about psychology as it is about math.
Turing machines are about math.
Thought experiments about math have no need to be applied to the real world.
No, that makes your cell phone get destroyed.
Keep in mind that this was in the First Circuit. (Liberal circuit, includes Boston, case law there based on cops trying to stop someone from filming *on Boston Common*). If you try this in Alabama, Nevada, or LA you are more likely to get the shit kicked out of you by the cops and then for them to arrest you.
And of course they are blaming the economic damage on getting caught as opposed to, well, what they were doing.
Of *course* they are. They're responsible for the consequences--but they also are right, Snowden's whistleblowing was also a cause. He has (with them) done probably billions of dollars of harm to the US tech industry.
Without him, it wouldn't have happened. Without them, it wouldn't have happened. They both did it for motives that they believed justified the cost.
That's all true, but manufacturers go to great lengths to inflate the figure.
I do wonder how someone so odiously dishonest as to participate in the practices you describe could ever become an engineer for a successful international brand.
Then, as someone who has been self-employed since 2003 and who has seen such a huge change in the way clients behave over the past decade, I wonder whether odious dishonesty today is a job requirement.
You have it backwards. They move toward dishonesty because they are working in a culture that (without calling it dishonesty) does dishonest things. For example, recently there was a memo in the News showing that GM prohibited engineers from using certain words like "defect" so that those words wouldn't show up in future lawsuits. This process is insidious--by itself it doesn't *have* to be dishonest, but it distorts the truth enough to make people a little more comfortable with distorting the truth.
There isn't much that can be done in response to Russia. Military action is out of the question: One does not start an open war with a nuclear superpower lightly. Economic sanctions hurt both sites, and Europe needs Russia as much as Russia needs Europe. They supply the gas that keeps the lights on.
Military action is not out of the question--there is simply some criteria for it that has not been met yet. If Putin believed he could swallow up all of Europe, he would. He's taking Ukraine piecemeal to give his forces time to consolidate power and to make it seem like smaller moves, each of which is more tolerable. At some point he will move beyond Ukraine, and if he moves too far military force or a demonstrated willingness to use it (i.e. U.S. or British boots on the ground in the next likely targets) will be a necessary response.
Prisons break laws constantly, they are expected to violate rights, violate laws, etc... they are there only for punishing poor people.
Show me millionaires that are in prison that go to general population prison.
Um... not quite. Rich people are less likely to go to jail period (because they can afford better lawyers, are targeted less, and less frequently have incentive to commit crimes like bank robbery and burglary that get people caught). You really have to look at rich people who are convicted of burglary and poor people who are convicted of burglary before saying that the jails really just exist to punish the poor.
As for rights, yes, prisons frequently violate rights, but consider the *flipside* of that. In the United States, we make it relatively easy for criminals to *sue* for violation of their rights. So pretty much *every* prison guard, no matter how good or honest, gets sued by prisoners. It's not like prisons are trying to violate rights--they're generally trying to not get sued.
What professional habits did you develop that helped you be successful enough to hold a high position in one of the world's important scientific institutions?
Actually, Comcast is severely undervalued right now, so their investors stand to profit either way.
Their EPS shows about a 5% return on market value, with near 20% annual earnings growth (geometric mean over five years, although mostly in the last three), but their market value is actually less than their equity. Now a lot of the equity is intangibles, but even if you take out fifty billion or so, they could still earn back their market value within three years.
(Pretax earnings are around 3B/quarter, total market cap is around 22B).
Way to sensationalize.
In the United States, prosecutors have the job of sensationalizing in order to get a conviction and longer sentences. They are spinning a story they design out of the facts, so they pick the facts which make someone seem as guilty as possible and of as big a crime as possible.
The defense attorney's job is to whittle that down. The jury has the job of guessing the truth from two competing false narratives (the prosecution and the defense). Only the judge can ask witnesses questions impartially, and he or she generally doesn't do that a lot.
They are allowed to start counting the votes before the voting ends ??? We only spawn 5.5 time zones but that`s still not allowed and well enforced.
They generally are, although it's up to the particular state. More importantly, the *exit polls*, which are not the actual vote but in which people say who they voted for, come out relatively quickly and can influence later voting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
Actually, the results here are important legally. One important persuasive argument in free speech cases is the chilling effect on speech. Empirical data showing that people do *not* engage in certain speech because of a government practice is useful for lawyers arguing against the illegality of those practices.
While there is a First Amendment issue here, the government almost certainly wins.
Time, place, and manner restrictions on first amendment activity are usually Constitutional so long as there is some rational basis for them. A reasonable time, place, and manner restriction with a public safety rationale would almost *never* be struck down.
When someone in the government violates Constitutional Rights in America, two things happen: First, evidence that comes from that violation is inadmissible in court. Second, the person whose rights have been violated can sue the pants off the government.
The US constitution only protects individuals from actions taken by their government or appointees.
Yup. We're talking about the FBI here, so that qualifies.
It is more complicated because of a massive fraud on the part of the prosecution to pretend that the information is not based on that violation.
Citation needed. What constitutional violations are you referring to here?
Google it; it's lying around if you look for it. Look up parallel construction of cases and read up a bit on deliberate withholding of evidence from the court.
It is also more complicated because juries, as a whole, care less about the government having violated your constitutional rights when you are a criminal.
US Juries have no authority to determine whether or not a person's constitutional rights have been violated or not. A judge determines whether any evidence obtained is admissible or not and the jury deliberates based on that decision and the evidence.
Wrong in this context. Section 1983 actions are what you bring when you file a civil claim against the government for having your rights violated. Juries decide issues of fact in Section 1983 cases. Therefore juries devaluing accused criminals results in less protection of constitutional rights.
It is also more complicated because when they get caught doing something bad enough, cops usually offer a deal where you won't sue and they won't prosecute.
Citation needed please.
Haven't looked through the literature for it--you are welcome to look. I am personally aware of it happening to someone who the cops beat the shit out of.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
The US Constitution requlates state goverement since the passage of the 14th Amendment. A New York free speach law can not limit the speach of the owners and employees of Baidu. They are allowed to have bias.
They are allowed to have Bias if they admit they have Bias. If they claim not to have bias, or not to be sensoring results, they may be committing fraud / violating truth-in-advertising laws.