Maybe. But legally speaking if the manager exceeded his scope then the company is not obligated to the contract. We really don't actually know who said what to whom and because of that this is just a Slashdot speculation frenzy.
That while many posting here think the company is screwing this person, maybe the fault really lies in the hiring manager. Quite often the hiring manager may make promises or say things they don't have a clue about.
In any of these questions there are not enough facts to really figure out what happened. Yes, while this person accepting the new job may get screwed don't jump to the conclusion that the company is backstabbing and that the new employee should quit. This just might be some dumb manager who doesn't have a clue--or maybe a smart manager who didn't get the email on what the standard relocation package is now. There is way too much missing information.
Legally, there may or may not be a contract. You can have a verbal contract which is binding, however, the hard part is proving the existence and details of the contract. Also, the newly hired employee might have a claim for induced reliance--the company induced him to quit his or her old job (maybe, because we really don't know when things happened) and because of that promise of relocation money he is out of a job. There is a potential claim here, but there is so much more that is needed before the new employee heads off to court.
Like someone pointed out he should go back to the hiring manager and find out if they can do anything. But the real lesson is that you don't quit your old job before you have all the details of the new job worked out first.
No, the internet portion will be 6Mpbs down and 1Mbps up. The rest is reserved for TV. See https://uverse1.att.com/launchAMSS.do and click on Internet.
Verizon, however, is offering 15Mbps/2Mbps.
When uverse comes to me the internet portion won't even match what I am getting from cable is offering (10/1) now.
I admit I am biased since I an in this industry but are they smoking something?
The only places which have offered free hosting have relied on ad revenue to make back the costs. What do they think is going to happen when the warez people hit the site? There goes the bandwidth, the storage and here come the problems. And what about the spammers who will flock to the free site to run the smtp mailers? They are going to spend so much time on fighting off this sort of crap from the legitimate people they won't have time for anything else. And apparently they are going to do this for free?
That is why this TCO says Linux is higher. If you look at all the numbers Linux is lower on everything except Labor. They quote almost a 100% over Windows labor. Obviously this is because they can't find anyone capable of performing Linux system administration.
I wouldn't say this would translate to the rest of the world because your labor pool is going to vary from county to country, city to city and even among different companies. For this place in the world, at this time, this is probably correct. However, all you can extrapolate from this study is that for this place in the world, at this time, Windows is cheaper to run than Linux "for them." For everyone else you have to do your own TCO.
You can have my linux when you deposit that hundred million dollar check in my bank account.
If I were Redhat I would sell out for half a billion dollars and then jump onto a BSD project and restart your business.
Re:Prices--Red Hat way more expensive
on
Will Red Hat Survive?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
>>> Red Hat charges a premium for RHEL AS, less for ES and WS is priced similarly to Microsoft products
Everytime I have approached Red Hat for volume licensing they are **ALWAYS** more expensive than Microsoft. In fact the latest bid is 100% more; that is Red Hat is twice as expensive. (this is not for AS).
>>>How about if you are bogged down in a peace-keeping and rebuilding operation
But that is not the role of the military. And when you start using the military as policemen instead of using them for what they are trained to do you have problems.
The major flaw in this is that the entire premise is based upon the fact that the military wants to win a public relations war rather than the real thing.
Who cares if you are in a *war* and you hurt the enemy?
Give me a break. When you get to the point where you are trying to care about what people think about you in a war you are losing. War is for one thing only--the destruction of your enemy.
If you are very efficient and eliminate your enemy very quickly you can just write (rewrite) any PR you want to.
This is the right thinking. The reason is not because there is no return for the company for securing the data, but that there is no repercussions for not securing it. While I don't think allowing a lawsuit would resolve the problem I do think a stiff monetary fine would. Something like $100.00 per person for exposing data in an insecure method. This could easily be passed in a bill/law under negligent handling of person data.
Great concept, but unless the server hosting the script has enough bandwidth and CPU to handle the requests or the the embedded script will never run. This will always be the fatal flaw in concepts like this.
Yeah, but if they are trying to bump the RIAA expert on bias it is the wrong way to go about it.
The way you handle a situation where the opposing expert is blantly biased is that you let them testify and then cross-examine them on their bias showing how un-objective they are. You then bring up a objective expert (yours) and show that they have zero bias. The effect is that all the testimony presented by the bias expert will be discounted and you are left with your unbiased expert.
You don't bump the biased expert because that just lets the opposing side bring in a stronger expert. Maybe that's why the defendant wants a judge to appoint someone, but there is no way that the RIAA will not be allowed to bring in their own expert. Failure to let them do that is reversible error (grounds for appeal).
>>It is to be expected that the court would appoint a neutral expert who has no bias in favour of the defendant
That is not the way the courts are setup though. If you believe a person has bias then in cross-examination you bring out that bias to the court. It is then up to the trier of fact (whether that is a jury or judge) to either believe or dis-believe the expert testimony.
>>One final thing - you seem to be assuming the defendant has something to hide in asking for an independent witness.
No, nothing implied other than the defendant wants more expert testimony.
>>What you should be asking is what the RIAA has to gain by avoiding an independent witness.
Well, if I were representing the RIAA I would argue that it would increase costs (wanna bet the next motion would be to split the expert's cost if defendant wins) and time.
I don't think The RIAA is avoiding anything by not letting defendant try to get more expert testimony. Realize, if the defendant wants independant testimony so bad they can simply call an independant expert anytime they wish.
Nope. If the defendant wants a neutral expert witness then all they have to do is pick one (or have one picked for them by anyone in the industry) and then present that witness as their expert in court. You can have as many experts as you want examine the evidence outside of court (you just have to pay for them), but you only get to present one expert testimony in court. There is no need for another *neutral* expert witness when they can just do this in the first place.
This entire article is misleading. The article is trying to make out the RIAA for being bad for having their expert witness examine the evidence and not allowing anyone else to do this. This is BS.
The way expert witnesses work is that each side always gets to have their own expert witness examine the facts of the case. One expert witness for the plaintiff and another for the defendant. And not surprisingly, the plaintiff pays for and chooses their expert witness while the defendant does the same. Then in court each expert witness presents their findings.
You don't have a situation where the RIAA pays for and has to use only the defendant's choosing in an expert witness. That's because the defendant could just pick an expert which will say what the defendant wants.
All rules of evidence allow an expert witness of the own parties choosing. If there is confidential information then what the Judge will do is just issue a protective order noting that information cannot be used in the suit or released.
My father-in-law has a small DSL provider in another state and I literally got a domain name and setup a site for him so he could receive email like this: his_first_name@his_last_name.com. I totally scored on getting the domain name to be his last name. However, he uses his grke1956@heme.net as his email address. Can't get him to change even though I offered to set everything up. Normal users just have the mindset: I need to use the email they give me.
This is just another blacklisting implementing the flavor of the day. This "flavor of the day" is now blacklisting not the origin of the spam but the last server/ISP/hop of the spam to the recipients.
Spamcop starting doing this a while back in their list. They, now, ban you not if you sent the spam but if the spam was forwarded from you or was the result of an autoresponder (spamcop therefore has said you should not use any autoresponders at all--"you should have a co-worker answer your email when you are gone" (How's that for privacy?)). Spammers send to email addresses with autoresponders or spam filters which bounce the email back to the return address--the return address--which is faked--is now the intended spam recipient. Therefore if your server/ISP/spam filter is setup to reject spam you will be targeted now and included in spam listings.
So, if you don't do anything and spam flows through you, you are on the list. If you actively reject spam, you might make the list. This is just going to get worse before it gets better. And good luck getting any information from a blacklist--they actively will not tell you the reason for the listing anymore because then (as they say) "spammers will use that information." Gee, doesn't help you fix any problems does it (if even you have a problem )?
Why do you think these companies recalled the batteries? By choice? No, once it was discovered the laptops could explode the government forced the recall so terrorists would not buy hundreds of laptops and turn them on while flying...
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe. But legally speaking if the manager exceeded his scope then the company is not obligated to the contract. We really don't actually know who said what to whom and because of that this is just a Slashdot speculation frenzy.
That while many posting here think the company is screwing this person, maybe the fault really lies in the hiring manager. Quite often the hiring manager may make promises or say things they don't have a clue about.
In any of these questions there are not enough facts to really figure out what happened. Yes, while this person accepting the new job may get screwed don't jump to the conclusion that the company is backstabbing and that the new employee should quit. This just might be some dumb manager who doesn't have a clue--or maybe a smart manager who didn't get the email on what the standard relocation package is now. There is way too much missing information.
Legally, there may or may not be a contract. You can have a verbal contract which is binding, however, the hard part is proving the existence and details of the contract. Also, the newly hired employee might have a claim for induced reliance--the company induced him to quit his or her old job (maybe, because we really don't know when things happened) and because of that promise of relocation money he is out of a job. There is a potential claim here, but there is so much more that is needed before the new employee heads off to court.
Like someone pointed out he should go back to the hiring manager and find out if they can do anything. But the real lesson is that you don't quit your old job before you have all the details of the new job worked out first.
So no one could read the command codes off the screen and lower his shields. Geez, didn't you see Wrath of Kahn?
No, the internet portion will be 6Mpbs down and 1Mbps up. The rest is reserved for TV. See https://uverse1.att.com/launchAMSS.do and click on Internet.
Verizon, however, is offering 15Mbps/2Mbps.
When uverse comes to me the internet portion won't even match what I am getting from cable is offering (10/1) now.
I admit I am biased since I an in this industry but are they smoking something?
The only places which have offered free hosting have relied on ad revenue to make back the costs. What do they think is going to happen when the warez people hit the site? There goes the bandwidth, the storage and here come the problems. And what about the spammers who will flock to the free site to run the smtp mailers? They are going to spend so much time on fighting off this sort of crap from the legitimate people they won't have time for anything else. And apparently they are going to do this for free?
- or have a small desk with 2 to 4 people inside
How do you get two to four people to fit inside your desk? Especially a small desk?
That is why this TCO says Linux is higher. If you look at all the numbers Linux is lower on everything except Labor. They quote almost a 100% over Windows labor. Obviously this is because they can't find anyone capable of performing Linux system administration.
I wouldn't say this would translate to the rest of the world because your labor pool is going to vary from county to country, city to city and even among different companies. For this place in the world, at this time, this is probably correct. However, all you can extrapolate from this study is that for this place in the world, at this time, Windows is cheaper to run than Linux "for them." For everyone else you have to do your own TCO.
Yeah, but most people will say:
You can have my linux when you deposit that hundred million dollar check in my bank account.
If I were Redhat I would sell out for half a billion dollars and then jump onto a BSD project and restart your business.
>>> Red Hat charges a premium for RHEL AS, less for ES and WS is priced similarly to Microsoft products
Everytime I have approached Red Hat for volume licensing they are **ALWAYS** more expensive than Microsoft. In fact the latest bid is 100% more; that is Red Hat is twice as expensive. (this is not for AS).
According to MSNBC alltunes was shut off Oct 1 already by Visa; they are not that stupid, yet. (And no, mastercard does not work either).
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15323093/
Now, now Mel. You aren't supposed to be drinking in the middle of the day.
Yeah but, the more people who are using the Google search engine the more people see the ads on Google. That means more money.
>>>How about if you are bogged down in a peace-keeping and rebuilding operation
But that is not the role of the military. And when you start using the military as policemen instead of using them for what they are trained to do you have problems.
The major flaw in this is that the entire premise is based upon the fact that the military wants to win a public relations war rather than the real thing.
Who cares if you are in a *war* and you hurt the enemy?
Give me a break. When you get to the point where you are trying to care about what people think about you in a war you are losing. War is for one thing only--the destruction of your enemy.
If you are very efficient and eliminate your enemy very quickly you can just write (rewrite) any PR you want to.
This is the right thinking. The reason is not because there is no return for the company for securing the data, but that there is no repercussions for not securing it. While I don't think allowing a lawsuit would resolve the problem I do think a stiff monetary fine would. Something like $100.00 per person for exposing data in an insecure method. This could easily be passed in a bill/law under negligent handling of person data.
Great concept, but unless the server hosting the script has enough bandwidth and CPU to handle the requests or the the embedded script will never run. This will always be the fatal flaw in concepts like this.
Yeah, but if they are trying to bump the RIAA expert on bias it is the wrong way to go about it.
The way you handle a situation where the opposing expert is blantly biased is that you let them testify and then cross-examine them on their bias showing how un-objective they are. You then bring up a objective expert (yours) and show that they have zero bias. The effect is that all the testimony presented by the bias expert will be discounted and you are left with your unbiased expert.
You don't bump the biased expert because that just lets the opposing side bring in a stronger expert. Maybe that's why the defendant wants a judge to appoint someone, but there is no way that the RIAA will not be allowed to bring in their own expert. Failure to let them do that is reversible error (grounds for appeal).
>>It is to be expected that the court would appoint a neutral expert who has no bias in favour of the defendant
That is not the way the courts are setup though. If you believe a person has bias then in cross-examination you bring out that bias to the court. It is then up to the trier of fact (whether that is a jury or judge) to either believe or dis-believe the expert testimony.
>>One final thing - you seem to be assuming the defendant has something to hide in asking for an independent witness.
No, nothing implied other than the defendant wants more expert testimony.
>>What you should be asking is what the RIAA has to gain by avoiding an independent witness.
Well, if I were representing the RIAA I would argue that it would increase costs (wanna bet the next motion would be to split the expert's cost if defendant wins) and time.
I don't think The RIAA is avoiding anything by not letting defendant try to get more expert testimony. Realize, if the defendant wants independant testimony so bad they can simply call an independant expert anytime they wish.
Nope. If the defendant wants a neutral expert witness then all they have to do is pick one (or have one picked for them by anyone in the industry) and then present that witness as their expert in court. You can have as many experts as you want examine the evidence outside of court (you just have to pay for them), but you only get to present one expert testimony in court. There is no need for another *neutral* expert witness when they can just do this in the first place.
This entire article is misleading. The article is trying to make out the RIAA for being bad for having their expert witness examine the evidence and not allowing anyone else to do this. This is BS.
The way expert witnesses work is that each side always gets to have their own expert witness examine the facts of the case. One expert witness for the plaintiff and another for the defendant. And not surprisingly, the plaintiff pays for and chooses their expert witness while the defendant does the same. Then in court each expert witness presents their findings.
You don't have a situation where the RIAA pays for and has to use only the defendant's choosing in an expert witness. That's because the defendant could just pick an expert which will say what the defendant wants.
All rules of evidence allow an expert witness of the own parties choosing. If there is confidential information then what the Judge will do is just issue a protective order noting that information cannot be used in the suit or released.
Google doesn't own it . . . yet.
Geeks, about 1%. Normal users--99%.
My father-in-law has a small DSL provider in another state and I literally got a domain name and setup a site for him so he could receive email like this: his_first_name@his_last_name.com. I totally scored on getting the domain name to be his last name. However, he uses his grke1956@heme.net as his email address. Can't get him to change even though I offered to set everything up. Normal users just have the mindset: I need to use the email they give me.
This is just another blacklisting implementing the flavor of the day. This "flavor of the day" is now blacklisting not the origin of the spam but the last server/ISP/hop of the spam to the recipients.
Spamcop starting doing this a while back in their list. They, now, ban you not if you sent the spam but if the spam was forwarded from you or was the result of an autoresponder (spamcop therefore has said you should not use any autoresponders at all--"you should have a co-worker answer your email when you are gone" (How's that for privacy?)). Spammers send to email addresses with autoresponders or spam filters which bounce the email back to the return address--the return address--which is faked--is now the intended spam recipient. Therefore if your server/ISP/spam filter is setup to reject spam you will be targeted now and included in spam listings.
So, if you don't do anything and spam flows through you, you are on the list. If you actively reject spam, you might make the list. This is just going to get worse before it gets better. And good luck getting any information from a blacklist--they actively will not tell you the reason for the listing anymore because then (as they say) "spammers will use that information." Gee, doesn't help you fix any problems does it (if even you have a problem )?
>>perhaps it's ethics
Now, whose being naive?
Seriously though, there is no way the recall is going to stop a class action lawsuit. That's going to happen no matter what.
Why do you think these companies recalled the batteries? By choice? No, once it was discovered the laptops could explode the government forced the recall so terrorists would not buy hundreds of laptops and turn them on while flying...
Think about it.