Correct would be functional, secure, and easily maintained.
Its nothing to do with "holy standards." You just aren't capable of doing the job you were assigned. Someone that IS knowledge could have done it without security holes and without needlessly tying your company to a particular browser.
Just because you can hit a nail with a hammer does not mean I'd trust you to build a house.
Like I said, you were put in a bad spot. But don't sit here and say you did a good job of it.
Boy, you're right. I guess only [insert job title] are 'qualified' to insist other [insert same job title] stop playing video games while on company time and while 100's of lives depend on their being ready for anything.
Maybe you should talk to a pilot, because you just sound ignorant. Try this, sit down a computer, and set your screen saver. Then stare at it for five hours. Do nothing else. Tell me how alert you are.
I'll remember that the next time I see a news report of an on-duty cop surfing porn in his patrol car. Who am I tell him how to do his job anyway?
Well since you're such the expert, you also should tell that cop how to handle a hostigate situation, what to do during a bank robbery, how to gather evidence after a woman has been raped. I mean, you know it all, right dipshit?
You think that because you fly on a plane, you have something meaningful to add? Do you think that knowing how to install a light bulb means you're qualified to tell an EE how to do their job?
And that's my point, you're not qualified to offer any advice to either profession.
An ad is something you see to intice you to buy a product. A manual explains the product AFTER you've purchased it. The fact that they documented it is irrelevent; it was a bonus feature that they never cared to tell anyone about.
No one has ever shown me one advertisement where sony included the "other os" as a feature. At most, its in the manual which you see after you open the box (and indeed was the first time i'd ever heard of it). So please, provide a citation to an ad from sony that touted the other os feature.
Notice that they DO advertise you can watch BD movies on it.
What law did they break removing the feature? The case is a class action, civil in nature so this is more along the lines of a contract dispute, but if you think they broke a law, please tell me which one.
I would simply order from Amazon then. See, the reason the stores keep selling sony is because people want to buy sony products. If you really want to affect change, customers would have to stop buying sony. Personally, I see no reason to do so and have been happy with the sony stuff I have.
If your viewpoint I guess I should have just rolled-over and let myself be screwed.
Actually ya. You have a duty to make sure you PROMPTLY examine what you bought. Your own post says you waited longer than 60 days to do so, so I personally would have no sympathy for you. That your card issuer agrees with you means they want to keep you happy, not that you were right.
I'm not sure where in the Consitution it says states may enforce federal laws if they believe the feds aren't doing it. I do see a part that says only the feds may make laws about immigration though.
Your last statement just seems to be racist fear mongering. Do you have states on the breakdown of murders? Or are the dirty wetbacks just a convient scapegoat for a police force which is lazy and inept (as they all pretty much are)?
Your thinking is way off here. First, by definition, cops != millitas. Not even close. Second, AZ already can arrest people for murder, illegal alien or not. There is a difference between civilians and armies invading, and AZ is not being invaded by anything. There may be a crime spree, but that doesn't mean you go to martial law. And even then, the consitution still applies.
What AZ should be doing is undercutting the reason for crimelords to be there; legalize pot would be one thing, since the drug trade I believe is a large part of the violence there.
You're an idiot. I cited that first case to clearly illustrate how stupid the courts ruling is (and I will gladly tell them so). No where in Zippo or the first case I cited do they explain why ordering over the internet is different than mail order or phone. You can have a website which offers phone numbers / mail order forms and not be subject to the other state's laws, but having a computer handle the order taking instead of a person changes things, how exactly? That case highlights the courts faulty reasoning.
Then you ignore the second link completely... I supposed because it backs my statement that the Zippo case is junk.
Yes, the path you describe is exactly the problem. You stepped outside your field, and did a poor job. Not your fault really, nobody should have asked you to do it, and I understand that you probably couldn't say no. But someone with the proper skills could have done it correctly and probably around the same kind of cost.
Oh, please. You don't see a distinction between "your floppy discs ended up in our state" and "you receive orders from residents of our state and ship product to those residents"?
Not really, no. And you don't see a difference between this MA law and business not having to collect sales tax for out of state residences?
I have, repeatedly. Zippo. International Shoe. Maritz. Cybersell.
And I have repeatedly explained why this doesn't apply. Its not an example, and it doesn't even apply expect in Western PA.
[Citation needed]
Oh, I guess that's why when I purchase from newegg they collect sales tax. Oh wait, they don't. Or when I buy from a catalog with no physical presense in my state, they collect sales tax. Oh wait, again, they don't.
One of the things that might be throwing you off is that you keep going to the dormant commerce clause. Specific personal jurisdiction is where you want to look first - the state court needs personal jurisdiction in order to even reach the question of dormant commerce clause.
The main thing throwing you off is that the case you keep refering to 1) was never decided at a national level, which is why different federal courts have had differing opinions, and 2) believe that the courts have it right when treating internet orders differently from mail order. Read this case: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=5th&navby=docket&no=9820770CV0
And explain how having a phone number to place orders, or a mail order form to place orders is in any real way different from allowing the website to take orders? It doesn't make sense, just like the Zippo case doesn't make sense.
The Zippo sliding scale is junk, and you need to realize that. Other courts have dismissed the sliding scale, and for good reason: it doesn't make sense to treat the internet differently than phone or mail order.
The case establishes a three prong test.. did you read it?
In favor of a slightly broader one that includes more out-of-state corporations being subject to state law.
No, courts have generally been all over the place.
The one I cited? Yes. It is.
All the information I found says its limited to the Western PA federal district courts. So unless you can show otherwise, no it isn't.
I'm a bit confused as to what you're trying to get at here... If a mail order company sends catalogs to residents of a state, they have specific personal jurisdiction in that state.
*sigh* That's contrary to pretty much all caselaw to date. But please feel free to cite caselaw which says otherwise, because you sound like you're making stuff up. The courts have said that businesses must have a nexus within the state to be subject to state laws, and have also said merely advertising in a state doesn't meet that requirement.
The internet does put a twist in that, since residents request packets, but the courts haven't made the technical leap to acknowledge that, and treat them the same as a mail order company who sends catalogs to residents.
Yes, and merely sending a catalog doesn't subject a business to the rules of the residents state. So the whole push vs pull point is moot.
It was something like Quint vs ND, which sent to the US Supreme Court, I believe.
You miss the mark again though; for one, that's not the ONLY test to determine if a company might be subject to state law. Second, its vague, and other courts have rejected it. Notibly though, this isn't a supreme court case, whereas the one cited earlier is.
You act as if the internet throws some new twist here though. Please explain why you think a web server processing orders is any different than mail order companies processing orders and sending out catalogs?
Oh, that case also involved a company which HAD EMPLOYEES IN THE STATE OF WA. If I'm buying advertising in MA, I (nor any of my employees) ever need to actually ENTER MA to do so.
How is it the company's fault that your grandfather has exceedingly weak teeth? If lots of people were chipping their teeth on it, that'd be one thing, but some old guy who's dental hygene may be a factor?
Slashdot Mirror
This is well established in common law. Go ask a lawyer.
Correct would be functional, secure, and easily maintained.
Its nothing to do with "holy standards." You just aren't capable of doing the job you were assigned. Someone that IS knowledge could have done it without security holes and without needlessly tying your company to a particular browser.
Just because you can hit a nail with a hammer does not mean I'd trust you to build a house.
Like I said, you were put in a bad spot. But don't sit here and say you did a good job of it.
Boy, you're right. I guess only [insert job title] are 'qualified' to insist other [insert same job title] stop playing video games while on company time and while 100's of lives depend on their being ready for anything.
Maybe you should talk to a pilot, because you just sound ignorant. Try this, sit down a computer, and set your screen saver. Then stare at it for five hours. Do nothing else. Tell me how alert you are.
I'll remember that the next time I see a news report of an on-duty cop surfing porn in his patrol car. Who am I tell him how to do his job anyway?
Well since you're such the expert, you also should tell that cop how to handle a hostigate situation, what to do during a bank robbery, how to gather evidence after a woman has been raped. I mean, you know it all, right dipshit?
You think that because you fly on a plane, you have something meaningful to add? Do you think that knowing how to install a light bulb means you're qualified to tell an EE how to do their job?
And that's my point, you're not qualified to offer any advice to either profession.
Show me a single advertisement which included the other os feature. Otherwise, no bait and switch.
Firing them is one thing. Keeping them operational, reloading during battle, etc, is quite another.
If that's your assertion, then surely you can point to an ad that touts the other os feature, right?
A manual is not an advertisement.
An ad is something you see to intice you to buy a product. A manual explains the product AFTER you've purchased it. The fact that they documented it is irrelevent; it was a bonus feature that they never cared to tell anyone about.
No one has ever shown me one advertisement where sony included the "other os" as a feature. At most, its in the manual which you see after you open the box (and indeed was the first time i'd ever heard of it). So please, provide a citation to an ad from sony that touted the other os feature.
Notice that they DO advertise you can watch BD movies on it.
push back at Sony for their illegal actions
What law did they break removing the feature? The case is a class action, civil in nature so this is more along the lines of a contract dispute, but if you think they broke a law, please tell me which one.
I would simply order from Amazon then. See, the reason the stores keep selling sony is because people want to buy sony products. If you really want to affect change, customers would have to stop buying sony. Personally, I see no reason to do so and have been happy with the sony stuff I have.
If your viewpoint I guess I should have just rolled-over and let myself be screwed.
Actually ya. You have a duty to make sure you PROMPTLY examine what you bought. Your own post says you waited longer than 60 days to do so, so I personally would have no sympathy for you. That your card issuer agrees with you means they want to keep you happy, not that you were right.
Thanks, I'm not sure what we'd do without your helpful advise, being an expert pilot and all.
I'm not sure where in the Consitution it says states may enforce federal laws if they believe the feds aren't doing it. I do see a part that says only the feds may make laws about immigration though.
Your last statement just seems to be racist fear mongering. Do you have states on the breakdown of murders? Or are the dirty wetbacks just a convient scapegoat for a police force which is lazy and inept (as they all pretty much are)?
Your thinking is way off here. First, by definition, cops != millitas. Not even close. Second, AZ already can arrest people for murder, illegal alien or not. There is a difference between civilians and armies invading, and AZ is not being invaded by anything. There may be a crime spree, but that doesn't mean you go to martial law. And even then, the consitution still applies.
What AZ should be doing is undercutting the reason for crimelords to be there; legalize pot would be one thing, since the drug trade I believe is a large part of the violence there.
You're an idiot. I cited that first case to clearly illustrate how stupid the courts ruling is (and I will gladly tell them so). No where in Zippo or the first case I cited do they explain why ordering over the internet is different than mail order or phone. You can have a website which offers phone numbers / mail order forms and not be subject to the other state's laws, but having a computer handle the order taking instead of a person changes things, how exactly? That case highlights the courts faulty reasoning.
Then you ignore the second link completely... I supposed because it backs my statement that the Zippo case is junk.
Yes, the path you describe is exactly the problem. You stepped outside your field, and did a poor job. Not your fault really, nobody should have asked you to do it, and I understand that you probably couldn't say no. But someone with the proper skills could have done it correctly and probably around the same kind of cost.
Compatibility mode downgrades to work like IE7, not IE6.
Oh, please. You don't see a distinction between "your floppy discs ended up in our state" and "you receive orders from residents of our state and ship product to those residents"?
Not really, no. And you don't see a difference between this MA law and business not having to collect sales tax for out of state residences?
I have, repeatedly. Zippo. International Shoe. Maritz. Cybersell.
And I have repeatedly explained why this doesn't apply. Its not an example, and it doesn't even apply expect in Western PA.
[Citation needed]
Oh, I guess that's why when I purchase from newegg they collect sales tax. Oh wait, they don't. Or when I buy from a catalog with no physical presense in my state, they collect sales tax. Oh wait, again, they don't.
One of the things that might be throwing you off is that you keep going to the dormant commerce clause. Specific personal jurisdiction is where you want to look first - the state court needs personal jurisdiction in order to even reach the question of dormant commerce clause.
The main thing throwing you off is that the case you keep refering to 1) was never decided at a national level, which is why different federal courts have had differing opinions, and 2) believe that the courts have it right when treating internet orders differently from mail order. Read this case: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=5th&navby=docket&no=9820770CV0
And explain how having a phone number to place orders, or a mail order form to place orders is in any real way different from allowing the website to take orders? It doesn't make sense, just like the Zippo case doesn't make sense.
The Zippo sliding scale is junk, and you need to realize that. Other courts have dismissed the sliding scale, and for good reason: it doesn't make sense to treat the internet differently than phone or mail order.
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-ca8/case_no-09-2914/case_id-0/
Sorry, can't find anything related to that at all.
This is the case referenced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quill_Corp._v._North_Dakota
No, it's just the most recent test.
The case establishes a three prong test.. did you read it?
In favor of a slightly broader one that includes more out-of-state corporations being subject to state law.
No, courts have generally been all over the place.
The one I cited? Yes. It is.
All the information I found says its limited to the Western PA federal district courts. So unless you can show otherwise, no it isn't.
I'm a bit confused as to what you're trying to get at here... If a mail order company sends catalogs to residents of a state, they have specific personal jurisdiction in that state.
*sigh* That's contrary to pretty much all caselaw to date. But please feel free to cite caselaw which says otherwise, because you sound like you're making stuff up. The courts have said that businesses must have a nexus within the state to be subject to state laws, and have also said merely advertising in a state doesn't meet that requirement.
The internet does put a twist in that, since residents request packets, but the courts haven't made the technical leap to acknowledge that, and treat them the same as a mail order company who sends catalogs to residents.
Yes, and merely sending a catalog doesn't subject a business to the rules of the residents state. So the whole push vs pull point is moot.
It was something like Quint vs ND, which sent to the US Supreme Court, I believe.
You miss the mark again though; for one, that's not the ONLY test to determine if a company might be subject to state law. Second, its vague, and other courts have rejected it. Notibly though, this isn't a supreme court case, whereas the one cited earlier is.
You act as if the internet throws some new twist here though. Please explain why you think a web server processing orders is any different than mail order companies processing orders and sending out catalogs?
The transaction would happen on a server in India, and still be outside the influence of MA.
Oh, that case also involved a company which HAD EMPLOYEES IN THE STATE OF WA. If I'm buying advertising in MA, I (nor any of my employees) ever need to actually ENTER MA to do so.
Nice try, but a more recent ruling (in 1992, vs. your 1940s case) seems to have undone that, which someone else on this thread already pointed out.
How is it the company's fault that your grandfather has exceedingly weak teeth? If lots of people were chipping their teeth on it, that'd be one thing, but some old guy who's dental hygene may be a factor?