How should I know that writing clearly 'I don't agree' is not sufficient.
I believe it is quite sufficient. You clearly intimated, in writing, your disagreement. It is presumed the person doing the exit has agency for the company. If they let it slide, it is on them, not you.
If it were not sufficient, then hand red-lining clauses and sentences in the body of a contract would not be 'legal' either.
Shouldn't the plaintiff be required to show proof that the letter was received?
Sure. You sign a piece of paper that reads in essence, "I sent this to him on this date, I promise under penalty of perjury". After initial service, US Mail is usually sufficient for notice to other parties in a case.
Judges keep recusing themselves because they don't want to deal with an ass of a litigant like the smarmy fellow in the article. They could declare him a vexatious litigant and impose sanctions, or more strict rules of conduct, but they'd rather kick the can down the road.
A binding arbitration, and jurisdiction clauses in the terms of the sale are more like it. Even then, would only help in the eventual defense, not in the initial filing of a suit.
But the issue is that the news feed was represented as a mere reflection of what the users were reading. What was delivered was a biased curated product instead.
Unethical, yes, illegal, eh....
Government is interested due the reach of Facebook. And a feelgoodgoshtheyreallycareboutme byline in the press.
They tie the severance package to 'successfully' transitioning your job function. Most of the time they also make you agree to be contacted for a set amount of time post employment.
but most of whom are just lazy and happy to live off government cheese.
Have you ever lived of "government cheese" ? It's not much, you often have to be very very creative to survive on it. You don't always get it neither: you're not handicapped enough, you have inherited 1/16 of family property (which you can't sell) or have a significant other with a high paying fulltime job. And if you do finally manage to get it, it binds you to another exhausting set of rules and restrictions. For me it was eventually just easier to get a job than to plough through all the bureaucracy and this is in socialist paradise (Belgium). But there are people out there who are discarded by the social system and have to "mooch" of their relatives because their papers don't have the right stamps or they can't make heads or tails of this always-changing process.
... Kennedy changed it to around 75% in the early 1960s. Yet that period was one of the most productive in terms of economic growth and infrastructure building...
That was a production based economy with two continents needing massive rebuilding. We now have a consumer based economy; you need cash to consume.
Insert car analogy here illustrating fundamentally different argument starting points.
Slashdot Mirror
You must be a Disney villain AI in learning mode.
" and mostly go unnoticed by hospital IT staff."
and mostly go willfully unnoticed by hospital IT staff.
Fixed that for you.
Though it is more correct to say "hospital IT staff turn a blind eye to the practice".
And pay for healthcare... and a house... and a pony
I'm 6'3" you insensitive clod! I need a beast at least 16-18 hands high. Sheesh.
How should I know that writing clearly 'I don't agree' is not sufficient.
I believe it is quite sufficient. You clearly intimated, in writing, your disagreement. It is presumed the person doing the exit has agency for the company. If they let it slide, it is on them, not you.
If it were not sufficient, then hand red-lining clauses and sentences in the body of a contract would not be 'legal' either.
Shouldn't the plaintiff be required to show proof that the letter was received?
Sure. You sign a piece of paper that reads in essence, "I sent this to him on this date, I promise under penalty of perjury". After initial service, US Mail is usually sufficient for notice to other parties in a case.
Judges keep recusing themselves because they don't want to deal with an ass of a litigant like the smarmy fellow in the article. They could declare him a vexatious litigant and impose sanctions, or more strict rules of conduct, but they'd rather kick the can down the road.
A binding arbitration, and jurisdiction clauses in the terms of the sale are more like it. Even then, would only help in the eventual defense, not in the initial filing of a suit.
You have just incentivized the attorneys to drive costs through the roof. After all, somebody else is going to pay them eventually!
Your naivete would be amusing if not for your overwhelming desire not to lose it.
Maybe someone should sue you over it.
Juries and judges do not give a damn about the self-righteousness of either party.
"...social media users took two Twitter..."
Did they give at least one back?
Will robot consumers come back with the factory?
Is the law engaged in a hostile boarding action? Could the anti-piracy law, be ACTUALLY engaging in real life piracy?
Since businesses are not actually people
Actually, in the US a corporation is a person.
But the issue is that the news feed was represented as a mere reflection of what the users were reading. What was delivered was a biased curated product instead.
Unethical, yes, illegal, eh....
Government is interested due the reach of Facebook. And a feelgoodgoshtheyreallycareboutme byline in the press.
They tie the severance package to 'successfully' transitioning your job function. Most of the time they also make you agree to be contacted for a set amount of time post employment.
Have you ever lived of "government cheese" ? It's not much, you often have to be very very creative to survive on it.
You don't always get it neither: you're not handicapped enough, you have inherited 1/16 of family property (which you can't sell) or have a significant other with a high paying fulltime job.
And if you do finally manage to get it, it binds you to another exhausting set of rules and restrictions.
For me it was eventually just easier to get a job than to plough through all the bureaucracy and this is in socialist paradise (Belgium).
But there are people out there who are discarded by the social system and have to "mooch" of their relatives because
their papers don't have the right stamps or they can't make heads or tails of this always-changing process.
Sounds like the bureaucracy worked in your case.
Agreed. However, I have a feeling we are going to eventually find out that MPG exaggeration is germane to all automakers.
DOH! out of mod points.
Post is way more insightful, than funny.
Girl 2.0 was released?
Here is the reference:
http://www.sealandgov.org/
Judges can appoint a 'special master' to impartially advise the court on technical issues.
Juries very well may get technical matters wrong, but that is one reason why there are appellate courts.
I doubt many criminal juries are staffed by people expert in homicide, yet we do not doubt their ability to render a verdict.
5 out of 4 stathitist say yor dum.
... Kennedy changed it to around 75% in the early 1960s. Yet that period was one of the most productive in terms of economic growth and infrastructure building...
That was a production based economy with two continents needing massive rebuilding. We now have a consumer based economy; you need cash to consume.
Insert car analogy here illustrating fundamentally different argument starting points.
The paint is blue.
Kidding, of course I didn't click through to read before posting.
So...if you hire a nanny service to care for your kids, you don't care to check if the candidate is a pedophile?
Well, if you're good at it, you should see it coming before it happens....
Citation, please. I have a couple hundred bucks burning a hole in my change jar.