The point is, is that some unscrupulous employer, may use personal information to terminate an employee, even if such termination is illegal under the law, without a written employee contract. The GGP, was implying that because you work for a company then you must abide by its at will clause. My point was that, you can't blame the worker for signing a contract, because he doesn't necessarily have to sign a contract in order for his employment deemed to be at will.
In your article you quoted,...are held to be "at will" which means that the employer may dismiss the employee at any time for any reason.
You can fire anyone at anytime, even if it is a bad reason. Don't confuse illegal firing with that of a bad reason firing. Illegal firing, is firing based on a protected class, such as those protected under Title VII, whistle blowing statutes and the like. Then there are other exceptions like that of Government employees, you can't fire them at will, you have to have a reason, this is because Government work is protected under the takings clause under the Constitution. Also there are exceptions are Union employees, but they are under an employment contract. But at last time I checked, MS was neither a government agency nor an Union shop.
Anyways I might be wrong as I did not go to Harvard. So if you can cite a Washington case, where someone was fired for a "bad" reason, such as playing a competitor's game then I would be happy to look at it.
What if they won't give you your money back? What about when the PSP was released and you couldn't return it even if it did have dead pixels. Although I agree that most class actions are pretty asinine.
If it's a design flaw, then the Xbox 360 that is returned will have the same problem. Also, sometimes a corporation's definition of defective is different than yours. Most LCD manufacturers do not allow returns for defective pixels of a certain percentage. Not saying I will sue for a defective Xbox 360. But if its a larger problem of design, then a law suit or a complaint to the attorney general gets you more leverage than a phone call to the retailer.
You don't even have to sign a contract in at will employments states. In Washington, Nintendo can fire you because you were playing an Xbox a little too much even without a contract.
Because, there are some places where you would want to edit the image without opening up photoshop, and it doesn't have to be perfect but works good enough. One example of this, are those places where people take pics of you and then at the end of the tour you pay for your picture. I think those dinner cruise things have them. So 200 people get on board, you have 200 pics. The cruise ends in 2 hours. In the 2 hours if they want a pic, you have a way of organizing the pics and at the same time, do simple image editing like getting rid of red eye and the like. The image manipulation doesn't have to be great, just good enough for those tourists.
When you are just one guy, it is pretty hard to negotiate with a ginormous corporation like MS. Only way you have any leverage is a threat of a law suit. And as most people know, most law suits get settled, and this one probably won't go to trial.
The law of warranty is also codified in the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act and also state versions of this act. Also the UCC is not US law, it is a state law, states are free to choose and augment or even ignore the UCC. Louisiana, is the only state not the ratify a version of the UCC. So there you go, you are right, but not really.
What if there were a bunch of people were to go out and then mow a public park, and weed it and such, they don't have the right to alter the appearance of an object?
It's not copyright, it is trademark law. They don't want Risk to become a generic name for a world domination game. That way when you buy a Risk game you know what kind of rules it comes with. The Yo Yo used to be a trademarked term as well.
Here is the link to http://www.primidi.com/. If you click, you can see that Roland has done a more thorough job on the Zdnet post, than the same info on his site.
If you click on related science articles, it leads you to Piquepaille's del.icio.us site, clicking on one of those links, it leads you to Piquepaille's blog.
The legal definition of theft also includes giving unauthorized employee discounts to friend's and family members. Using a friend's employee discount to buy an iPod is also theft for example, but most people wouldn't say that was really stealing.
My guess is people would like to ban bar code makers, or limit access to them. Since this guy bought this thing online, it is somewhat relevant to your rights online. There have been a couple of posts where it stated that this sort of thing should be legislated. You can't post stuff on how to scam people for example. But since technologies can be used for both evil and good, I think that such information like this should be free.
He didn't really steal the item. It was a counter offer. If I went to a car dealership, the sticker price said 30k. Then I offered 25k, and the other side accepted, then would it be stealing? No, because there was an offer, acceptance and consideration, a valid contract. The clerk as an agent of Walmart, saw the iPod, saw it was 4.99 and sold it at that price. Of course, it may be a mistake or fraudulent, but it is not stealing.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is, is that some unscrupulous employer, may use personal information to terminate an employee, even if such termination is illegal under the law, without a written employee contract. The GGP, was implying that because you work for a company then you must abide by its at will clause. My point was that, you can't blame the worker for signing a contract, because he doesn't necessarily have to sign a contract in order for his employment deemed to be at will.
In your article you quoted, ...are held to be "at will" which means that the employer may dismiss the employee at any time for any reason.
You can fire anyone at anytime, even if it is a bad reason. Don't confuse illegal firing with that of a bad reason firing. Illegal firing, is firing based on a protected class, such as those protected under Title VII, whistle blowing statutes and the like. Then there are other exceptions like that of Government employees, you can't fire them at will, you have to have a reason, this is because Government work is protected under the takings clause under the Constitution. Also there are exceptions are Union employees, but they are under an employment contract. But at last time I checked, MS was neither a government agency nor an Union shop.
Anyways I might be wrong as I did not go to Harvard. So if you can cite a Washington case, where someone was fired for a "bad" reason, such as playing a competitor's game then I would be happy to look at it.
IANAL yadda yadda
What if they won't give you your money back? What about when the PSP was released and you couldn't return it even if it did have dead pixels. Although I agree that most class actions are pretty asinine.
If it's a design flaw, then the Xbox 360 that is returned will have the same problem. Also, sometimes a corporation's definition of defective is different than yours. Most LCD manufacturers do not allow returns for defective pixels of a certain percentage. Not saying I will sue for a defective Xbox 360. But if its a larger problem of design, then a law suit or a complaint to the attorney general gets you more leverage than a phone call to the retailer.
Most kids of the 80s used Apples in schools. Even today a quite sizable number of computers in schools are Apples, and yet Windows thrives.
You don't even have to sign a contract in at will employments states. In Washington, Nintendo can fire you because you were playing an Xbox a little too much even without a contract.
I thought Wave Racer and Mario 64 were really impressive.
Ah yes, 20 floppies to load up a copy of leisure suit larry. Good times.
Because, there are some places where you would want to edit the image without opening up photoshop, and it doesn't have to be perfect but works good enough. One example of this, are those places where people take pics of you and then at the end of the tour you pay for your picture. I think those dinner cruise things have them. So 200 people get on board, you have 200 pics. The cruise ends in 2 hours. In the 2 hours if they want a pic, you have a way of organizing the pics and at the same time, do simple image editing like getting rid of red eye and the like. The image manipulation doesn't have to be great, just good enough for those tourists.
The parent was stating that Aperture will not be like Final Cut, and will not be at the level where pros would want to use them.
It would be more akin to selling an SUV with the added instructions that it be only used on paved dry roads. It doesn't make any sense.
When you are just one guy, it is pretty hard to negotiate with a ginormous corporation like MS. Only way you have any leverage is a threat of a law suit. And as most people know, most law suits get settled, and this one probably won't go to trial.
The law of warranty is also codified in the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act and also state versions of this act. Also the UCC is not US law, it is a state law, states are free to choose and augment or even ignore the UCC. Louisiana, is the only state not the ratify a version of the UCC. So there you go, you are right, but not really.
Most comsumer products class actions, you end up with some coupon which is not really worth much. The persons that win are the lawyers.
What if there were a bunch of people were to go out and then mow a public park, and weed it and such, they don't have the right to alter the appearance of an object?
It's not copyright, it is trademark law. They don't want Risk to become a generic name for a world domination game. That way when you buy a Risk game you know what kind of rules it comes with. The Yo Yo used to be a trademarked term as well.
Here is the link to http://www.primidi.com/. If you click, you can see that Roland has done a more thorough job on the Zdnet post, than the same info on his site.
If you click on related science articles, it leads you to Piquepaille's del.icio.us site, clicking on one of those links, it leads you to Piquepaille's blog.
The legal definition of theft also includes giving unauthorized employee discounts to friend's and family members. Using a friend's employee discount to buy an iPod is also theft for example, but most people wouldn't say that was really stealing.
My guess is people would like to ban bar code makers, or limit access to them. Since this guy bought this thing online, it is somewhat relevant to your rights online. There have been a couple of posts where it stated that this sort of thing should be legislated. You can't post stuff on how to scam people for example. But since technologies can be used for both evil and good, I think that such information like this should be free.
Agent of Target. Damn it.
He didn't really steal the item. It was a counter offer. If I went to a car dealership, the sticker price said 30k. Then I offered 25k, and the other side accepted, then would it be stealing? No, because there was an offer, acceptance and consideration, a valid contract. The clerk as an agent of Walmart, saw the iPod, saw it was 4.99 and sold it at that price. Of course, it may be a mistake or fraudulent, but it is not stealing.
Next time the guy in the Ski mask comes in, you have your man.
I prefer GILF myself.
There was a shortage of the DS for a while, and Nintendo had to open a third manufacturing plant to meet demand.