The janitor who over billed 90K was the father of the school district superintendent. He was required to pay back the overage. If the school was private - the father of the chairman could be put on the payroll at 90K and it wouldn't be a problem. Private corporations are hardly a guarantee of thrift and good stewardship. Just ask the former Tyco chairman.
The LD50 (the amount of a substance that reliably kills 50% of a test population) for Hydrogen cyanide is 3.7 mg/kg - so a bit on a needle won't kill or even make very sick a 50kg human. All it will do is annoy them
I am an attorney (although this is not my area of practice), and this sounds like a clear violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The act generally requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities and under no circumstances does it allow an employee to be fired BECAUSE of a disability. What qualifies as a disability that requires accommodation is constantly evolving in the courts - but repetitive stress certainly qualifies. Your company is lucky that this manager did not sue.
I ran into the same issue on a non-dell system. The issue seems to be that you can't uninstall McAfee while its running and you can't turn it off... Totally designed to frustrate the average user who will find it just easier to pay the "ransom".
Yes antitrust cases are fairly difficult to prove. You need to find evidence of collusion - like the e-mails in this case. The problem is that companies often simply follow each others pricing moves in order to stay competitive - so just a pattern of common pricing is generally not enough for an antitrust suit.
It prevents the little guys from getting an advantage by colluding - they are still free to get an advantage by making a superior product or by taking advantage of a more flexible manufacturing process or differing capital structure to get it to market cheaper.
I am a lawyer - and yes you are wrong. Colluding with a nominal competitor to lower prices to force a 3rd competitor out of business or to drop a product line is anti-competitive, both legally and actually. The concern is that once the colluding parties have succeeded in driving the competitor out of the market - they can divide it up between them and price as they please. Like many laws - some portions of the antitrust laws are designed to avoid the creation of potentially abusive situations. So while on the surface colluding to lower prices seems like a public good - in fact it is potentially a large public evil. This was a tactic used to great effect by John D. Rockefeller - Standard Oil would open a gas station across the street from an independent station - and lower prices untilt he other station went out of business and then raise prices. This sourt of actual abuse shows the logic behind the antitrust laws.
I am a lawyer - although antitrust is not my area of practice. The general rule is that any sort of collusion between nominal competitors is illegal. So- it doesn't matter if they are colluding to raise the price - or to lower it. Competitors can't coordinate their pricing.
I think you have to be careful about this kind of claim. If the virus missed was a new variant, you may just be seeing a difference in updating the virus definitions database. And it might be caused by your database update setting rather than the supplier not having updated their database. And even if it is caused by one vendor being first to market with updated definition - the same company might be second to market another time. I've used both AVG and Avast! and have seen each catch something the other missed...
ARE solar panels really clean? I mean there is the manufacturing process? How much pollution does that create? I can see LARGE solar plants being cleaner - but I wonder about home solar panels. I don;t know that they aren't cleaner - I'm just saying - don't assume they are - just because the don't pollute where you can see it.
I'm a lawyer - although employment law is not my area of practice. And in most states the rule is "employment-at-will" meaning that an employer can hire anyone for any reason or none and fire for any reason or none. However - there are a host of state and federal laws that vary "employment-at-will" in many ways. As pointed out - you cannot (generally) discriminate based on race, religion, disability or a few other protected classes. That said - as long as your application process is not deemed to discriminate against members of a protected class, you are free to use any process you like - or none. So - in the present case - as long as the requirement that the applicant apply online does not discriminate against him in his capacity as a protected class - there is nothing he can do. Note that the process can be completely fair to one applicant and still discriminatory to another - and the only one who has a legal claim is the one who is discriminated against. So, for example, the online application process might be discriminatory to a blind applicant, who would be entitled to complain - but not discriminatory to a sighted applicant - who could not complain that the process is not fair as applied to him.
I am an attorney - and this issue of Jury nullification is not entirely true. It's true that in U.S. Criminal cases (where double jeopardy applies) a jury can effectively nullify a law with a finding of not guilty. In civil cases, it's not so easy. A judge in a civil case can overturn a jury finding and render a Judgment notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV in Lawyerspeak). It's exactly what it sounds like - the jury can find for one party and the judge can decide that the jury is wrong and find for the other side. It's not done too commonly - and judges don't have a completely free hand - the standard is something like "No reasonable jury could reach this verdict". Of course, it's reviewable on appeal - and in the U.S. we are hesitant to over rule a jury - but if the jury just ignores the law a judge will not stand by.
Actually - this is not a criminal matter. Baker is being sued by the FTC. The government can bring both civil and criminal actions against a defendant. In this case they chose to pursue civil action, they often do this when they are primarily interested in obtaining money and when the evidence against the party may not stand up to the high standard of proof required for a criminal conviction. The ability to sue for money damages with evidence that only reaches the civil standard of a preponderance of the evidence is a powerful tool to stop fraudulent business practices.
I'm a lawyer - although patents is not my area of expertise. I've been looking at the upcoming Supreme Court schedule and it is looking to be a banner year for patent cases. In addition to the Ebay case, which centers on the issue of the automatic injunction, there are several cases that will allow the court to review the USPTO practice of granting patents to business processes and algorithms. So this is going to be a very interesting year for patent issues in the Supreme Court. If they get it right - it will resolve many of these problems - of course if they get it wrong....
FTA "Nobody has begged us to let them see a road sign two miles earlier." This kind of limited thinking is so rampant that this guy actually uttered this comment without any hesitation. The successful companies create products that enhance people's lives BEFORE they are begged. They create new technologies and then find applications.
I'm a lawyer - although civil rights is not my area of specialization - and it's not that simple. The world of "I own it & I can damn well do as I please" is long gone. A court would most likely find the WoW is a "public accommodation" and since it engages in Interstate commerce and uses the modalities of Interstate commerce it is subject to non-discrimination laws. However - Gay is not a protected class of people so Blizzard can do as they want with regard to gays - but just because you own something doesn't mean you can set ALL the rules.
I'm a lawyer - although tort is not my area of specialization. It's not really necessary for there to be a specific law on the books to sue someone who has caused you damage. In this case you could sue under a general negligence theory. The basic elements of negligence are 1) Did the company have a duty 2) was that duty breached 3) Was the breach a cause in fact of the damage & 4) Did actual damage occur.
If you analyze this case under general negligence theory - 1) Choice Point clearly had a duty to safeguard sensitive personal information 2) That duty was clearly breached 3) The breach would be a cause in fact if you identify is stolen 4) so- if you suffer actual damage as a result of this theft - you should have a negligence action against Choice Point.
Now - it is possible that they are in some way immunized from suit by some statute - but I don't recall anything of the sort.
That's some strange logic you have working there - better to be farmed and killed for leather goods than to just gently go extinct. Try applying that same reasoning to humans and see how it sounds.
Given the choice between death for my species or life as livestock - I would chose death.
I am a lawyer (although constitutional law is not my area of specialization) - and at least the taxes on "violent" video games and abortion would most likely be found unconstitutional. The government is free to tax video games at pretty much any rate they want - but the first amendment protection of free speech is generally construed to prohibit government regulation of "Content based speech" So - a tax on JUST violent video games - or even JUST kids video games is unlikely to pass constitutional muster.
Similarly - the tax on abortions is likely to be considered too great a burden on the right of abortion (as the court currently understands it - until Roberts, Scalia, Alito et al destroy it).
Interestingly enough the soda tax is probably fine.
The article assumes that the only way to drive traffic to your site is via search engines. If companies find themselves in the vicious circle he describes - the smart ones will simply find another way to drive traffic. Many already have. I mean who here has missed the seemingly ubiquitous Overstock.com television ads? Search engines are not the only form of advertising and they will only be the best form if they drive traffic at a price below the cost of other methods.
Many people here seem to think that the plan calls for storing all internet traffic. In fact the requirement is just for storage of connection log type data - the where's and the when's - but not so much of the actual what's. It's still a huge task and will require tons of storqge - but not quite the unlimited amount that people seem to think. Still it's a very bad idea.
There is no longer such a thing as an American company - all the big companies - the ones whose names we all know - are international in scope and yes - subject to the laws of many nations.
There is a good reason for vengeance - or punishment - to be less dramatic. It deters further acts in the same nature. It's not always about compensating the victims - sometimes it's about convincing the bad guys not to create future victims.
The first amendment does not simply apply to a total ban of speech - but also to laws that make speech a "controlled substance". The actual language is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech" Courts have consistently interpreted "abridging" to apply to situations where speech is controlled or made more difficult unless the state can show a "compelling state interest"
Slashdot Mirror
The janitor who over billed 90K was the father of the school district superintendent. He was required to pay back the overage. If the school was private - the father of the chairman could be put on the payroll at 90K and it wouldn't be a problem. Private corporations are hardly a guarantee of thrift and good stewardship. Just ask the former Tyco chairman.
The LD50 (the amount of a substance that reliably kills 50% of a test population) for Hydrogen cyanide is 3.7 mg/kg - so a bit on a needle won't kill or even make very sick a 50kg human. All it will do is annoy them
I am an attorney (although this is not my area of practice), and this sounds like a clear violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The act generally requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities and under no circumstances does it allow an employee to be fired BECAUSE of a disability. What qualifies as a disability that requires accommodation is constantly evolving in the courts - but repetitive stress certainly qualifies. Your company is lucky that this manager did not sue.
I ran into the same issue on a non-dell system. The issue seems to be that you can't uninstall McAfee while its running and you can't turn it off... Totally designed to frustrate the average user who will find it just easier to pay the "ransom".
Yes antitrust cases are fairly difficult to prove. You need to find evidence of collusion - like the e-mails in this case. The problem is that companies often simply follow each others pricing moves in order to stay competitive - so just a pattern of common pricing is generally not enough for an antitrust suit.
It prevents the little guys from getting an advantage by colluding - they are still free to get an advantage by making a superior product or by taking advantage of a more flexible manufacturing process or differing capital structure to get it to market cheaper.
I am a lawyer - and yes you are wrong. Colluding with a nominal competitor to lower prices to force a 3rd competitor out of business or to drop a product line is anti-competitive, both legally and actually. The concern is that once the colluding parties have succeeded in driving the competitor out of the market - they can divide it up between them and price as they please. Like many laws - some portions of the antitrust laws are designed to avoid the creation of potentially abusive situations. So while on the surface colluding to lower prices seems like a public good - in fact it is potentially a large public evil. This was a tactic used to great effect by John D. Rockefeller - Standard Oil would open a gas station across the street from an independent station - and lower prices untilt he other station went out of business and then raise prices. This sourt of actual abuse shows the logic behind the antitrust laws.
I am a lawyer - although antitrust is not my area of practice. The general rule is that any sort of collusion between nominal competitors is illegal. So- it doesn't matter if they are colluding to raise the price - or to lower it. Competitors can't coordinate their pricing.
I think you have to be careful about this kind of claim. If the virus missed was a new variant, you may just be seeing a difference in updating the virus definitions database. And it might be caused by your database update setting rather than the supplier not having updated their database. And even if it is caused by one vendor being first to market with updated definition - the same company might be second to market another time. I've used both AVG and Avast! and have seen each catch something the other missed...
ARE solar panels really clean? I mean there is the manufacturing process? How much pollution does that create? I can see LARGE solar plants being cleaner - but I wonder about home solar panels. I don;t know that they aren't cleaner - I'm just saying - don't assume they are - just because the don't pollute where you can see it.
I'm a lawyer - although employment law is not my area of practice. And in most states the rule is "employment-at-will" meaning that an employer can hire anyone for any reason or none and fire for any reason or none. However - there are a host of state and federal laws that vary "employment-at-will" in many ways. As pointed out - you cannot (generally) discriminate based on race, religion, disability or a few other protected classes. That said - as long as your application process is not deemed to discriminate against members of a protected class, you are free to use any process you like - or none. So - in the present case - as long as the requirement that the applicant apply online does not discriminate against him in his capacity as a protected class - there is nothing he can do. Note that the process can be completely fair to one applicant and still discriminatory to another - and the only one who has a legal claim is the one who is discriminated against. So, for example, the online application process might be discriminatory to a blind applicant, who would be entitled to complain - but not discriminatory to a sighted applicant - who could not complain that the process is not fair as applied to him.
I am an attorney - and this issue of Jury nullification is not entirely true. It's true that in U.S. Criminal cases (where double jeopardy applies) a jury can effectively nullify a law with a finding of not guilty. In civil cases, it's not so easy. A judge in a civil case can overturn a jury finding and render a Judgment notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV in Lawyerspeak). It's exactly what it sounds like - the jury can find for one party and the judge can decide that the jury is wrong and find for the other side. It's not done too commonly - and judges don't have a completely free hand - the standard is something like "No reasonable jury could reach this verdict". Of course, it's reviewable on appeal - and in the U.S. we are hesitant to over rule a jury - but if the jury just ignores the law a judge will not stand by.
Actually - this is not a criminal matter. Baker is being sued by the FTC. The government can bring both civil and criminal actions against a defendant. In this case they chose to pursue civil action, they often do this when they are primarily interested in obtaining money and when the evidence against the party may not stand up to the high standard of proof required for a criminal conviction. The ability to sue for money damages with evidence that only reaches the civil standard of a preponderance of the evidence is a powerful tool to stop fraudulent business practices.
I'm a lawyer - although patents is not my area of expertise. I've been looking at the upcoming Supreme Court schedule and it is looking to be a banner year for patent cases. In addition to the Ebay case, which centers on the issue of the automatic injunction, there are several cases that will allow the court to review the USPTO practice of granting patents to business processes and algorithms. So this is going to be a very interesting year for patent issues in the Supreme Court. If they get it right - it will resolve many of these problems - of course if they get it wrong....
FTA "Nobody has begged us to let them see a road sign two miles earlier." This kind of limited thinking is so rampant that this guy actually uttered this comment without any hesitation. The successful companies create products that enhance people's lives BEFORE they are begged. They create new technologies and then find applications.
I'm a lawyer - although civil rights is not my area of specialization - and it's not that simple. The world of "I own it & I can damn well do as I please" is long gone. A court would most likely find the WoW is a "public accommodation" and since it engages in Interstate commerce and uses the modalities of Interstate commerce it is subject to non-discrimination laws. However - Gay is not a protected class of people so Blizzard can do as they want with regard to gays - but just because you own something doesn't mean you can set ALL the rules.
I'm a lawyer - although tort is not my area of specialization. It's not really necessary for there to be a specific law on the books to sue someone who has caused you damage. In this case you could sue under a general negligence theory. The basic elements of negligence are 1) Did the company have a duty 2) was that duty breached 3) Was the breach a cause in fact of the damage & 4) Did actual damage occur. If you analyze this case under general negligence theory - 1) Choice Point clearly had a duty to safeguard sensitive personal information 2) That duty was clearly breached 3) The breach would be a cause in fact if you identify is stolen 4) so- if you suffer actual damage as a result of this theft - you should have a negligence action against Choice Point. Now - it is possible that they are in some way immunized from suit by some statute - but I don't recall anything of the sort.
That's some strange logic you have working there - better to be farmed and killed for leather goods than to just gently go extinct. Try applying that same reasoning to humans and see how it sounds. Given the choice between death for my species or life as livestock - I would chose death.
I am a lawyer (although constitutional law is not my area of specialization) - and at least the taxes on "violent" video games and abortion would most likely be found unconstitutional. The government is free to tax video games at pretty much any rate they want - but the first amendment protection of free speech is generally construed to prohibit government regulation of "Content based speech" So - a tax on JUST violent video games - or even JUST kids video games is unlikely to pass constitutional muster. Similarly - the tax on abortions is likely to be considered too great a burden on the right of abortion (as the court currently understands it - until Roberts, Scalia, Alito et al destroy it). Interestingly enough the soda tax is probably fine.
The article assumes that the only way to drive traffic to your site is via search engines. If companies find themselves in the vicious circle he describes - the smart ones will simply find another way to drive traffic. Many already have. I mean who here has missed the seemingly ubiquitous Overstock.com television ads? Search engines are not the only form of advertising and they will only be the best form if they drive traffic at a price below the cost of other methods.
No- but kazaaed is a verb now
Many people here seem to think that the plan calls for storing all internet traffic. In fact the requirement is just for storage of connection log type data - the where's and the when's - but not so much of the actual what's. It's still a huge task and will require tons of storqge - but not quite the unlimited amount that people seem to think. Still it's a very bad idea.
There is no longer such a thing as an American company - all the big companies - the ones whose names we all know - are international in scope and yes - subject to the laws of many nations.
There is a good reason for vengeance - or punishment - to be less dramatic. It deters further acts in the same nature. It's not always about compensating the victims - sometimes it's about convincing the bad guys not to create future victims.
The first amendment does not simply apply to a total ban of speech - but also to laws that make speech a "controlled substance". The actual language is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech" Courts have consistently interpreted "abridging" to apply to situations where speech is controlled or made more difficult unless the state can show a "compelling state interest"