Unfortunately, most people ask questions that aren't allowed under the rules of evidence. For example, "what was she wearing?" (this isn't relevant for a rape trial), or "Did he/she refuse to take a breathalyzer?" (Caveat - that may be admissible in some locations, but a breath test refusal is inadmissible in Massachusetts courts.)
Want an example of a relevant question that's admissible? How about "where, exactly, in the back was he shot?" Or "Did the shot come from the right or the left?" Unfortunately, these are few & far between.
Here's the thing; most attorneys bring out everything they can that's allowed by the rules of evidence. If you don't hear about it in court, there's a good chance that it isn't allowed by the rule of evidence. Omissions are more often a matter of law than they are a matter of legal practice.
The quote from the summary is incorrect - Americans who shop over the Internet from out-of-state are currently required to pay sales (or use) tax. The problem that the government has is that (1) the vendor often does not collect those taxes for internet (or mail order) sales, and (2) most people don't report them on their annual tax forms.
It's interesting to note that the summary quoted a representative from the state of Massachusetts. Massachusetts has a line on their state tax form specifically pertaining to out-of-state on-line purchases & sales tax. The state tax form requires you, as a citizen of Massachusetts, to (1) either pay the exact sales tax on items purchased on-line, or (2) pay a safety net "default" tax on your purchases if you can't itemize yor purchases.
But we all know the real issue here - it's the underlying infrastructure. Congress knows that large retail establishments (i.e., Amazon) can set up reliable taxing system. If the individual states have to rely upon the tax-paying individuals to truthfully report their purchases (as they do now), they fear (read: know) that they will not collect as much in taxes. They want to shift the burden to the retailers in order to make as much money as possible.
I would be much more sympathetic to these issues if the lawmakers would simply come out & say what they mean in a straight-forward, truthful manner. As it is, they look like weasels because they have to lie about the current state of affairs in order to get bills like this passed.
The title of the song that you're describing for is "Entrance of the Gladiators."
Frankly, I think you're better off if you don't know the real title of the song. For the last ten years all I can picture when I hear this tune is tiny versions of Maximus spilling out of a clown-car in the middle of the Forum.
As someone who has used both binoculars & telescopes as an amateur, I would like to second this advice. Here are some specific reasons why:
Movement. Telescopes all seem to have at least one direction reversed (in other words, to move the field to the right you need to move the telescope to the left. Or up/down is reversed.) This is not something that you get used to after 5 minutes - it's an ongoing frustration. And it's important because of:
Field of vision. Telescopes tend to have a smaller field of vision, often something like 2 degrees (I'm going from memory here.) That may not sound bad, but in practice it can become a major hassle as you have to constantly move the telescope to keep things in your field of view. Also, you often want to view larger areas of the sky at one time without having to move your telescope. And given the movement problem (above), you will find yourself adjusting the telescope the wrong way about half of the time. Stupid? Yes. Frustrating? Double-yes.
Ease of use. Telescopes require setup time. Binoculars require removal of the lens caps. This is one of those things that doesn't seem like a big deal in the store, but in real life it will quickly become a major issue (unless you leave you telescope planted in one place all of the time, which I don't think is an ideal situation for an amateur.) You want to be able to scan the sky with your bare eyes & then _immediately_ use your magnifying device to look at something specific. You do _not_ want to mess around with tripods and sighting scopes just to see the latest thing that caught your fancy. Binoculars win big here. Don't underestimate the usefulness of binoculars' quick reaction time. In my view, this is the most important factor to consider; if it isn't easy to use, you won't use it.
For the record, I'm an amateur who has owned and used both inexpensive binoculars and an inexpensive telescope. I would _hands down_ recommend the binoculars. Get practical experience, and _then_ shop for a telescope.
One more thing. Binoculars are much more kid-friendly than telescopes, so if you're a parent trying to interest your children in astronomy, add that to the above reasons.
You are confusing information that you have in your personal possession (and for which you have a reasonable expectation of privacy) with information about you that someone else has.
In this case it is the ISP that has information about you. That information isn't yours, it belongs to the ISP. It pertains to you, but it isn't one of your effects or some of your papers, not even in a metaphorical sense. It is highly unlikely that you would win a motion to suppress evidence gathered this way if you were relying solely on your Fourth Amendment rights.
Most of the posts so far are missing the entire point of this suit. This isn't about whether these contract workers can get the benefits that the employees do. That may be the _reason_ that the people are suing HP, but it is not the issue. The real issue here is whether HP is trying to reclassify employees as contract workers.
To (over)simplify, if a contract worker is treated like an employee then that contract worker can get the legal protection that an employee gets. That's why those IRS criteria are so important here; they aren't just persuasive arguments, they are central to the case.
This is not a contract issue any more than hiring child laborers is a contract issue. In either case it really wouldn't matter whether the contract was agreed to or not because the contract would not be enforceable as a matter of law. I'm sure that the people who are suing only care about the benefits that they are missing, but the issue in this case is entirely independent of those benefits.
Standard disclaimer: I'm not your lawyer and this is not meant to be taken as legal advice.
Sycraft-fu, I wasn't trying to call you out or anything, and I apologize if it sounded like I was. It's just that I've noticed a lot of/.'ers who really misunderstand (1) what "fair use" means, and (2) contract law.
Regarding your third point in particular; this is the area that I think needs to be settled. If I'm only buying a license - as opposed to the physical CD - then why am I charged a restocking fee when I try to return the game? If I'm buying a license that I can't see until I get home to my computer, and if I find it unacceptable once I see it, then I should have a right to reject that license & get a full refund - from the store that sold it, not just from the manufacturer.
If all I'm buying is a license, then what if I shoplift? Have I taken anything? What's the value? A shoplifter who hasn't agreed to the license hasn't "taken" the license yet.
I think that stores & manufactures want games to be physical products when it suits them, and licenses when it suits them. They can't have it both ways, and it's high time someone challenged them on it.
You can't just dictate whatever terms you want to people. They'd like ot pretend you have a contract with them. No, sorry, it's not. A contract requires an exchange of things (goods, money, whatever) and requires both parties to agree and sign.
There is no rule that the acceptance - or even the offer - must be in writing. Have you ever heard of an oral contract? They're valid. They're hard to prove in court, but they're valid contracts.
Saying "You agree by opening the box" isn't valid.
This exaggerates the situation. EULAs are brought up when you load new software, and you need to click "I agree to the above terms and conditions" before you move forward and install it. In contract law, that's good enough. If you didn't actually read it, the court won't care. If you didn't understand it, the court won't care. The court will care that you clicked on the "I accept" button, because that's enough to make a contract. Just because you don't want this to be valid doesn't make it invalid.
You have to leave this entire "if I don't sign a piece of paper, then there's no contract" attitude behind, because that's just not right.
A lawyer who waits until the jury instructions to educate the jurors about this topic is a lawyer who's going to take second place. This is something that should be - and is - brought up during jury selection. A competent prosecutor will ask the jury if they really believe that crimes can be solved in one hour. This is used as the starting point for a discussion of how the science that will be used in the trial really works, and by the time the jury is sworn in, they (should) know what to expect from real life, and how it differs from television.
Also, as a preemptive stike here - most jurors that make it onto a jury in a criminal case take the job very, very seriously. They don't jump to conclusions, they force the prosecutor to prove his or her case, and they don't buy the long shot excuses from the defense. Give credit where credit is due; most juries are very competent.
I've gotta tell you, trying to prove this in a "right to work" state (aka a "right to fire" state) is very difficult. If EA decides to move the entire operation off-shore in order to (theoretically) save money, then the employees are SOL - that's a valid business reason.
There are solutions to this problem (don't get me started!), but as it stands today, a right to fire state is pretty much just that.
AC wrote: "A six year old is under the complete control of the parent, and is thus not a participant in a free market."
And that's a limit on the free market, ergo it isn't part of a true free market.
This is exactly the point that I was trying to get across in my original post.
You think that free markets are a panacea? Look, I'm certainly on the Libertarian side of the scale, but totally free markets lead to immoral results (at least in my world view).
Do you need money now? Then send you six year old to work. Need a lot of money, then send you six year old into prostitution (there are enough sick people in this world to make this work). If you don't like that idea, then I'm afraid you'll have to give up on the idea of a totally free market system. Maybe you can regulate it, but just a little....
Do you see what happened? By regulating the serious problems, you discovered other problems. When you decided to regulated those, you discovered further areas where the free market system was being abused. Do you know where that led you? That's right - to today.
This system isn't great, but it was designed to prevent the abuses that a totally free market would otherwise allow.
So let me get this straight - you swapped out an old program (IE) for a new one (Firefox) without telling your relative. Why? I'm going to assume it's because you knew that your relative didn't know much about computers & you were afraid that he wouldn't let you do it if you were straight with him. It appears that the new program didn't work for your relative (he had specific needs, and it didn't meet them), so he asked you to undo whatever it was that you'd done. You tried to walk him through the process, but he didn't understand what you were asking him to do (remember, this guy is so computer illiterate that you had to replace IE with Firefox using subterfuge), so you had to go over & "fix" his computer so he could use the old program.
Lets say that you called you cousin to help you with a car problem. The next time you drove the car, it died at a stop sign - in fact, it died every time the tach went below 1000. you called you cousin to ask him why, and he told you that he had replaced your old engine with one that was far superior. When you told him that the new engine was dying, he said "well yeah, that happens at low RPM's, but the improvements more than make up for it." Unconvinced, you ask him to fix it. He tries to explain how easy it is for you to swap out the engines & put the old one back in - he even left the cherry picker & the old engine in your garage, so it shouldn't take much time or effort. Finally you convince him to come over & put the old engine back in your car. He does so, but he leaves feeling bitter, because he was trying to help you & all you wanted was your crummy old engine back in the car.
Trying to help someone is fine, but not everyone wants "help", and you have to be prepared to undo what you've done. I really like Firefox - and Linux, for that matter - but I realize that not everyone wants the same things that I do.
You feel bitter towards your relative? You should be thankful - he should have punched you in the mouth.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, most people ask questions that aren't allowed under the rules of evidence. For example, "what was she wearing?" (this isn't relevant for a rape trial), or "Did he/she refuse to take a breathalyzer?" (Caveat - that may be admissible in some locations, but a breath test refusal is inadmissible in Massachusetts courts.)
Want an example of a relevant question that's admissible? How about "where, exactly, in the back was he shot?" Or "Did the shot come from the right or the left?" Unfortunately, these are few & far between.
Here's the thing; most attorneys bring out everything they can that's allowed by the rules of evidence. If you don't hear about it in court, there's a good chance that it isn't allowed by the rule of evidence. Omissions are more often a matter of law than they are a matter of legal practice.
The quote from the summary is incorrect - Americans who shop over the Internet from out-of-state are currently required to pay sales (or use) tax. The problem that the government has is that (1) the vendor often does not collect those taxes for internet (or mail order) sales, and (2) most people don't report them on their annual tax forms.
It's interesting to note that the summary quoted a representative from the state of Massachusetts. Massachusetts has a line on their state tax form specifically pertaining to out-of-state on-line purchases & sales tax. The state tax form requires you, as a citizen of Massachusetts, to (1) either pay the exact sales tax on items purchased on-line, or (2) pay a safety net "default" tax on your purchases if you can't itemize yor purchases.
But we all know the real issue here - it's the underlying infrastructure. Congress knows that large retail establishments (i.e., Amazon) can set up reliable taxing system. If the individual states have to rely upon the tax-paying individuals to truthfully report their purchases (as they do now), they fear (read: know) that they will not collect as much in taxes. They want to shift the burden to the retailers in order to make as much money as possible.
I would be much more sympathetic to these issues if the lawmakers would simply come out & say what they mean in a straight-forward, truthful manner. As it is, they look like weasels because they have to lie about the current state of affairs in order to get bills like this passed.
The title of the song that you're describing for is "Entrance of the Gladiators."
Frankly, I think you're better off if you don't know the real title of the song. For the last ten years all I can picture when I hear this tune is tiny versions of Maximus spilling out of a clown-car in the middle of the Forum.
" If you are just starting, get some binoculars."
As someone who has used both binoculars & telescopes as an amateur, I would like to second this advice. Here are some specific reasons why:
Movement. Telescopes all seem to have at least one direction reversed (in other words, to move the field to the right you need to move the telescope to the left. Or up/down is reversed.) This is not something that you get used to after 5 minutes - it's an ongoing frustration. And it's important because of:
Field of vision. Telescopes tend to have a smaller field of vision, often something like 2 degrees (I'm going from memory here.) That may not sound bad, but in practice it can become a major hassle as you have to constantly move the telescope to keep things in your field of view. Also, you often want to view larger areas of the sky at one time without having to move your telescope. And given the movement problem (above), you will find yourself adjusting the telescope the wrong way about half of the time. Stupid? Yes. Frustrating? Double-yes.
Ease of use. Telescopes require setup time. Binoculars require removal of the lens caps. This is one of those things that doesn't seem like a big deal in the store, but in real life it will quickly become a major issue (unless you leave you telescope planted in one place all of the time, which I don't think is an ideal situation for an amateur.) You want to be able to scan the sky with your bare eyes & then _immediately_ use your magnifying device to look at something specific. You do _not_ want to mess around with tripods and sighting scopes just to see the latest thing that caught your fancy. Binoculars win big here. Don't underestimate the usefulness of binoculars' quick reaction time. In my view, this is the most important factor to consider; if it isn't easy to use, you won't use it.
For the record, I'm an amateur who has owned and used both inexpensive binoculars and an inexpensive telescope. I would _hands down_ recommend the binoculars. Get practical experience, and _then_ shop for a telescope.
One more thing. Binoculars are much more kid-friendly than telescopes, so if you're a parent trying to interest your children in astronomy, add that to the above reasons.
I hope this helps.
You are confusing information that you have in your personal possession (and for which you have a reasonable expectation of privacy) with information about you that someone else has.
In this case it is the ISP that has information about you. That information isn't yours, it belongs to the ISP. It pertains to you, but it isn't one of your effects or some of your papers, not even in a metaphorical sense. It is highly unlikely that you would win a motion to suppress evidence gathered this way if you were relying solely on your Fourth Amendment rights.
You, sir, are correct.
Most of the posts so far are missing the entire point of this suit. This isn't about whether these contract workers can get the benefits that the employees do. That may be the _reason_ that the people are suing HP, but it is not the issue. The real issue here is whether HP is trying to reclassify employees as contract workers.
To (over)simplify, if a contract worker is treated like an employee then that contract worker can get the legal protection that an employee gets. That's why those IRS criteria are so important here; they aren't just persuasive arguments, they are central to the case.
This is not a contract issue any more than hiring child laborers is a contract issue. In either case it really wouldn't matter whether the contract was agreed to or not because the contract would not be enforceable as a matter of law. I'm sure that the people who are suing only care about the benefits that they are missing, but the issue in this case is entirely independent of those benefits.
Standard disclaimer: I'm not your lawyer and this is not meant to be taken as legal advice.
Sycraft-fu, I wasn't trying to call you out or anything, and I apologize if it sounded like I was. It's just that I've noticed a lot of /.'ers who really misunderstand (1) what "fair use" means, and (2) contract law.
Regarding your third point in particular; this is the area that I think needs to be settled. If I'm only buying a license - as opposed to the physical CD - then why am I charged a restocking fee when I try to return the game? If I'm buying a license that I can't see until I get home to my computer, and if I find it unacceptable once I see it, then I should have a right to reject that license & get a full refund - from the store that sold it, not just from the manufacturer.
If all I'm buying is a license, then what if I shoplift? Have I taken anything? What's the value? A shoplifter who hasn't agreed to the license hasn't "taken" the license yet.
I think that stores & manufactures want games to be physical products when it suits them, and licenses when it suits them. They can't have it both ways, and it's high time someone challenged them on it.
I see this misconception a lot:
You can't just dictate whatever terms you want to people. They'd like ot pretend you have a contract with them. No, sorry, it's not. A contract requires an exchange of things (goods, money, whatever) and requires both parties to agree and sign.
There is no rule that the acceptance - or even the offer - must be in writing. Have you ever heard of an oral contract? They're valid. They're hard to prove in court, but they're valid contracts.
Saying "You agree by opening the box" isn't valid.
This exaggerates the situation. EULAs are brought up when you load new software, and you need to click "I agree to the above terms and conditions" before you move forward and install it. In contract law, that's good enough. If you didn't actually read it, the court won't care. If you didn't understand it, the court won't care. The court will care that you clicked on the "I accept" button, because that's enough to make a contract. Just because you don't want this to be valid doesn't make it invalid.
You have to leave this entire "if I don't sign a piece of paper, then there's no contract" attitude behind, because that's just not right.
A lawyer who waits until the jury instructions to educate the jurors about this topic is a lawyer who's going to take second place. This is something that should be - and is - brought up during jury selection. A competent prosecutor will ask the jury if they really believe that crimes can be solved in one hour. This is used as the starting point for a discussion of how the science that will be used in the trial really works, and by the time the jury is sworn in, they (should) know what to expect from real life, and how it differs from television.
Also, as a preemptive stike here - most jurors that make it onto a jury in a criminal case take the job very, very seriously. They don't jump to conclusions, they force the prosecutor to prove his or her case, and they don't buy the long shot excuses from the defense. Give credit where credit is due; most juries are very competent.
I've gotta tell you, trying to prove this in a "right to work" state (aka a "right to fire" state) is very difficult. If EA decides to move the entire operation off-shore in order to (theoretically) save money, then the employees are SOL - that's a valid business reason. There are solutions to this problem (don't get me started!), but as it stands today, a right to fire state is pretty much just that.
AC wrote: "A six year old is under the complete control of the parent, and is thus not a participant in a free market." And that's a limit on the free market, ergo it isn't part of a true free market. This is exactly the point that I was trying to get across in my original post.
You think that free markets are a panacea? Look, I'm certainly on the Libertarian side of the scale, but totally free markets lead to immoral results (at least in my world view).
Do you need money now? Then send you six year old to work. Need a lot of money, then send you six year old into prostitution (there are enough sick people in this world to make this work). If you don't like that idea, then I'm afraid you'll have to give up on the idea of a totally free market system. Maybe you can regulate it, but just a little....
Do you see what happened? By regulating the serious problems, you discovered other problems. When you decided to regulated those, you discovered further areas where the free market system was being abused. Do you know where that led you? That's right - to today.
This system isn't great, but it was designed to prevent the abuses that a totally free market would otherwise allow.
So let me get this straight - you swapped out an old program (IE) for a new one (Firefox) without telling your relative. Why? I'm going to assume it's because you knew that your relative didn't know much about computers & you were afraid that he wouldn't let you do it if you were straight with him. It appears that the new program didn't work for your relative (he had specific needs, and it didn't meet them), so he asked you to undo whatever it was that you'd done. You tried to walk him through the process, but he didn't understand what you were asking him to do (remember, this guy is so computer illiterate that you had to replace IE with Firefox using subterfuge), so you had to go over & "fix" his computer so he could use the old program. Lets say that you called you cousin to help you with a car problem. The next time you drove the car, it died at a stop sign - in fact, it died every time the tach went below 1000. you called you cousin to ask him why, and he told you that he had replaced your old engine with one that was far superior. When you told him that the new engine was dying, he said "well yeah, that happens at low RPM's, but the improvements more than make up for it." Unconvinced, you ask him to fix it. He tries to explain how easy it is for you to swap out the engines & put the old one back in - he even left the cherry picker & the old engine in your garage, so it shouldn't take much time or effort. Finally you convince him to come over & put the old engine back in your car. He does so, but he leaves feeling bitter, because he was trying to help you & all you wanted was your crummy old engine back in the car. Trying to help someone is fine, but not everyone wants "help", and you have to be prepared to undo what you've done. I really like Firefox - and Linux, for that matter - but I realize that not everyone wants the same things that I do. You feel bitter towards your relative? You should be thankful - he should have punched you in the mouth.