He's kinda light on the details but he may have been working on a contract basis. Also, employee handbooks are often determined to be a contract. It could be that the firing was outside the guidelines of the handbook at his company (such as need x# of write-ups before a firing will occur). But you are generally correct that most states have at-will based employment laws.
This isn't the health bill, but here is an example of the crap that Congress comes up with. This is unacceptable. These people earn almost $200,000 a year and this is the best they can come up with? They don't want to read it because they would then be forced to fix it.
Text of H.R. 5938 [110th]: Former Vice President Protection Act of 2008
(a) In General- Section 1030 of title 18, United States Code, is amendedâ" (1) in subsection (a)(5)â"(A) by striking subparagraph (B); and(B) in subparagraph (A)â"(i) by striking â(A)(i) knowinglyâ(TM) and inserting â(A) knowinglyâ(TM);(ii) by redesignating clauses (ii) and (iii) as subparagraphs (B) and (C), respectively; and(iii) in subparagraph (C), as so redesignatedâ"(I) by inserting âand lossâ(TM) after âdamageâ(TM); and(II) by striking â; andâ(TM) and inserting a period;(2) in subsection (c)â"(A) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking â(a)(5)(A)(iii),â(TM);(B) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking â(a)(5)(A)(iii),â(TM); â(4)(A) except as provided in subparagraphs (E) and (F), a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, in the case ofâ" â(i) an offense under subsection (a)(5)(B), which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, if the offense caused (or, in the case of an attempted offense, would, if completed, have caused)â" â(I) loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $5,000 in value; â(II) the modification or impairment, or potential modification or impairment, of the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment, or care of 1 or more individuals;â(III) physical injury to any persons; â(IV) a threat to public health or safety;â(V) damage affecting a computer used by or for an entity of the United States Government in furtherance of the administration of justice, national defense, or national security; or â(VI) damage affecting 10 or more protected computers during any 1-year period; or â(ii) an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; â(B) except as provided in subparagraphs (E) and (F), a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, in the case ofâ"â(i) an offense under subsection (a)(5)(A), which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, if the offense caused (or, in the case of an attempted offense, would, if completed, have caused) a harm provided in subclauses (I) through (VI) of subparagraph (A)(i); or â(ii) an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; â(C) except as provided in subparagraphs (E) and (F), a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, in the case ofâ" â(i) an offense or an attempt to commit an offense under subparagraphs (A) or (B) of subsection (a)(5) that occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section; or â(ii) an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; â(D) a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, in the case ofâ" â(i) an offense or an attempt to commit an offense under subsection (a)(5)(C) that occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section; or â(ii) an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; â(E) if the offender attempts to cause or knowingly or recklessly causes serious bodily injury from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A), a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both; â(F) if the offender attempts to cause or kn
Patent Pending
Can you please explain what the term âoepatent pendingâ means and what rights the inventor has to the product if the status is pending:
The marking of an article as patented when it is not in fact patented is against the law and subjects the offender to a penalty. Some persons mark articles sold with the terms "Patent Applied For" or "Patent Pending." These phrases have no legal effect, but only give information that an application for patent has been filed in the USPTO. The protection afforded by a patent does not start until the actual grant of the patent. False use of these phrases or their equivalent is prohibited.
Patents don't preclude hobbyists from building their own, so long as they don't go selling it.
That is false. The statute makes it illegal for anyone other than the patent holder to "make" the invention. Selling it is also illegal.
See 35 USC 271(a)
There are numerous documented crashes of the Predator drones. I believe the main cause of them, however, is operator error and not a faulty autonomous system. The controls are supposed to be really difficult and I have heard that the system sometimes randomly reboots midflight. http://www.google.com/search?q=predator+crash
My experience with US security clearance was exactly as you describe. I literally had 8 hours of reading/signing documents and had to sign at least 3 that told me explicitly who I could and could not talk to about what I was doing. Each was read to me after I read it myself, and they went line by line to make sure I understood it. Roth is completely full of crap if he claims he didn't know. The process left me with the distinct impression that if I even had a hint that I shouldn't be talking about it or wasn't sure, I should keep my big mouth shut. The funny part is, I'm not sure I actually saw anything classified during my stint. Not that I'm going to be talking about any of it, because I'm just not sure, but still. Doubly funny was debriefing, that also took 8 hours where they went over everything again that I had gone through when I received clearance in the first place.
I used to have a top secret clearance and my experience was nothing close to yours. I simply had to take an oath and sign a one page document. My debriefing was even shorter. In fact, now that I think about it, my oath was taken when my secret clearance was granted. I did nothing further when my T/S went through.
My point is simply that this guy may have had an experience similar to mine and from the summary, (unless I skimmed too fast) it doesn't sound like he even had a clearance. This is an ITAR issue. Which by the way, seemed to be taken way more seriously at my company because people actually get thrown in prison for violating it when those violations are simply negligent. Negligent classified information violations were normally punished with a nasty gram email and a "don't do that again!" letter.
Since it's a federal tax, it doesn't really matter where you drive from the point-of-view of collecting taxes. How you dole out that money for highway projects is a problem however.
This is what liberal justices on the supreme court have given us. The commerce clause has been construed to include just about everything. I don't think this is what the founders had in mind.
Yea well they could at least give dollar amounts based on numbers of people enrolled in it instead of just throwing up their hands and saying "We don't know!" They'd get more respect from me if they just said "We don't care!"
Slashdot Mirror
Seems like you didn't even read my post.
Won't be long before "fraud sites" = "copyright infringement" sites. Who is behind this?
The correction was made after I submitted the article. Thank you for your kind words, asshole.
the obvious solution is to ban pills
I still don't understand this netbook push. Seems like a fabricated market to me. Kinda like e-readers.
He's kinda light on the details but he may have been working on a contract basis. Also, employee handbooks are often determined to be a contract. It could be that the firing was outside the guidelines of the handbook at his company (such as need x# of write-ups before a firing will occur). But you are generally correct that most states have at-will based employment laws.
Looks like lynx (http://lynx.isc.org) is still safe.
I'm sure all 13 users will be happy to hear that.
yes because they are in such dire need of a new energy resource...
This isn't the health bill, but here is an example of the crap that Congress comes up with. This is unacceptable. These people earn almost $200,000 a year and this is the best they can come up with? They don't want to read it because they would then be forced to fix it.
http://volokh.com/2009/09/23/recent-computer-crime-legislation-the-actual-text-so-you-can-read-it-yourself/
Text of H.R. 5938 [110th]: Former Vice President Protection Act of 2008
(a) In General- Section 1030 of title 18, United States Code, is amendedâ" (1) in subsection (a)(5)â"(A) by striking subparagraph (B); and(B) in subparagraph (A)â"(i) by striking â(A)(i) knowinglyâ(TM) and inserting â(A) knowinglyâ(TM);(ii) by redesignating clauses (ii) and (iii) as subparagraphs (B) and (C), respectively; and(iii) in subparagraph (C), as so redesignatedâ"(I) by inserting âand lossâ(TM) after âdamageâ(TM); and(II) by striking â; andâ(TM) and inserting a period;(2) in subsection (c)â"(A) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking â(a)(5)(A)(iii),â(TM);(B) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking â(a)(5)(A)(iii),â(TM); â(4)(A) except as provided in subparagraphs (E) and (F), a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, in the case ofâ" â(i) an offense under subsection (a)(5)(B), which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, if the offense caused (or, in the case of an attempted offense, would, if completed, have caused)â" â(I) loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $5,000 in value; â(II) the modification or impairment, or potential modification or impairment, of the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment, or care of 1 or more individuals;â(III) physical injury to any persons; â(IV) a threat to public health or safety;â(V) damage affecting a computer used by or for an entity of the United States Government in furtherance of the administration of justice, national defense, or national security; or â(VI) damage affecting 10 or more protected computers during any 1-year period; or â(ii) an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; â(B) except as provided in subparagraphs (E) and (F), a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, in the case ofâ"â(i) an offense under subsection (a)(5)(A), which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, if the offense caused (or, in the case of an attempted offense, would, if completed, have caused) a harm provided in subclauses (I) through (VI) of subparagraph (A)(i); or â(ii) an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; â(C) except as provided in subparagraphs (E) and (F), a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both, in the case ofâ" â(i) an offense or an attempt to commit an offense under subparagraphs (A) or (B) of subsection (a)(5) that occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section; or â(ii) an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; â(D) a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, in the case ofâ" â(i) an offense or an attempt to commit an offense under subsection (a)(5)(C) that occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section; or â(ii) an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; â(E) if the offender attempts to cause or knowingly or recklessly causes serious bodily injury from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(5)(A), a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both; â(F) if the offender attempts to cause or kn
except Twitter.
Patent Pending Can you please explain what the term âoepatent pendingâ means and what rights the inventor has to the product if the status is pending: The marking of an article as patented when it is not in fact patented is against the law and subjects the offender to a penalty. Some persons mark articles sold with the terms "Patent Applied For" or "Patent Pending." These phrases have no legal effect, but only give information that an application for patent has been filed in the USPTO. The protection afforded by a patent does not start until the actual grant of the patent. False use of these phrases or their equivalent is prohibited.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/iip/transcriptsn_s.htm
no
I know you're just joking, but...
Patents don't preclude hobbyists from building their own, so long as they don't go selling it.
That is false. The statute makes it illegal for anyone other than the patent holder to "make" the invention. Selling it is also illegal. See 35 USC 271(a)
.... If you just filed for a patent you should be patent-pending soon
If he just filed a patent application, then his thing is "patent pending." As soon as you file, you can call it that.
Labeling something "patent-pending" does nothing other than make you feel good. It has no legal effect at all.
Assuming that he is in the U.S., he would still be violating U.S. patent law by making the invention within the U.S.
There are numerous documented crashes of the Predator drones. I believe the main cause of them, however, is operator error and not a faulty autonomous system. The controls are supposed to be really difficult and I have heard that the system sometimes randomly reboots midflight. http://www.google.com/search?q=predator+crash
Kind of surprised the court didn't stay the decision considering that Bilski is scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court.
Export restrictions are different from security clearances.
My experience with US security clearance was exactly as you describe. I literally had 8 hours of reading/signing documents and had to sign at least 3 that told me explicitly who I could and could not talk to about what I was doing. Each was read to me after I read it myself, and they went line by line to make sure I understood it. Roth is completely full of crap if he claims he didn't know. The process left me with the distinct impression that if I even had a hint that I shouldn't be talking about it or wasn't sure, I should keep my big mouth shut. The funny part is, I'm not sure I actually saw anything classified during my stint. Not that I'm going to be talking about any of it, because I'm just not sure, but still. Doubly funny was debriefing, that also took 8 hours where they went over everything again that I had gone through when I received clearance in the first place.
I used to have a top secret clearance and my experience was nothing close to yours. I simply had to take an oath and sign a one page document. My debriefing was even shorter. In fact, now that I think about it, my oath was taken when my secret clearance was granted. I did nothing further when my T/S went through.
My point is simply that this guy may have had an experience similar to mine and from the summary, (unless I skimmed too fast) it doesn't sound like he even had a clearance. This is an ITAR issue. Which by the way, seemed to be taken way more seriously at my company because people actually get thrown in prison for violating it when those violations are simply negligent. Negligent classified information violations were normally punished with a nasty gram email and a "don't do that again!" letter.
you must be new here
but who the fuck is Lori Drew?
Since it's a federal tax, it doesn't really matter where you drive from the point-of-view of collecting taxes. How you dole out that money for highway projects is a problem however.
This is what liberal justices on the supreme court have given us. The commerce clause has been construed to include just about everything. I don't think this is what the founders had in mind.
Lenovo has adware in their updates,
This is true? Why have I not heard of this?
http://readthebill.org/
Yea well they could at least give dollar amounts based on numbers of people enrolled in it instead of just throwing up their hands and saying "We don't know!" They'd get more respect from me if they just said "We don't care!"