Count yourself among the blessed. There's nothing wrong with finding fulfillment at work. It just can't be the only concern you ever have in finding a job. Once you have food on the table and a roof over your head, you can start being more picky about the next job you take. Not before.
I was going to stuff the "job bank" binders at my law school with McDonald's applications as a joke, but I decided not to because it would be unethical to encourage some of those idiots to be near hot grills and food that would reach the public.
No no no. You've got it wrong. If you have a 2.7 GPA, claim you spent your entire first three years drunk out of your mind, sobered up, and then in two semesters worked your way up to a 2.7 cumulative GPA. It demonstrates a current willingness and ability to work your ass off to accomplish something.
There are two good ways to get a 2.7 GPA. You can either be less intelligent than those around you or you can be lazier. Given that she brags up her "solid attendance record," it's safe to say that she is in the camp who think that showing up is enough. Guess what, kids: Showing up is not enough. You have to work hard to succeed, both in school and beyond. Your 2.7 GPA shows one of two things to potential employers (you are either stupid or lazy), and your "solid attendance record" confirms that you will show up to work at 9 and leave at 5 every day, probably accomplishing nothing at all while you're there.
If I weren't so convinced that humans as a species are incapable of it, I would tell this girl to be objective for a minute. Step outside of yourself and answer the question, "Would I hire me?"
Agreed. Three months of searching for a job is nothing. When I got my C.Sci degree, I spent 3 months searching for a job across 2 states. Finding none, I moved across the country and searched another 3 months. I finally found a job doing IT for a bank and took it, spending all available downtime looking for a better job for the next 9 months. After 15 months of unsuccessful pavement-pounding, I had a decision to make: I could either wait out the economy a bit in my shitty IT job or I could change my career path.
So many people claim they have "tried" things. Tried to find a job. Tried to make a marriage work. Tried to resolve family conflicts. Tried, my ass. If you have not actively done something for at least a year, you have not tried it any more than dipping your toes in the water and crying aloud about how cold it is constitutes trying to swim.
+1 regarding "dream jobs." So many people I know have gone to graduate school or bounced from job to job, their sole reason being "I am not fulfilled at work." Work is not about fulfillment. If you are fulfilled at your job more than one hour a week, I congratulate you, but for almost all of us work is not about being fulfilled - work is about paying for the things that are fulfilling. You can't fill your bookshelves, music collection, passport, or photo albums for free. Find a job that you are good at and do it. Then, take the money you make and go find some fulfillment in life.
If you do it right, you'll eventually find equilibrium in a career that you are proud of and have a positive experience, but you'll still long for fulfillment outside of work.
But no matter your eventually ending up in a dream job of some sort, remember that there are two ways to get there: (1) Work your way up from the trenches or (2) time it so you can yourself in an economic bubble that, just like an actual dream, you will wake up from stiff and sore with the same old shitty job waiting for you. If you are too lazy to prove yourself, the chances are good that you're also too lazy to actually do the dream job to begin with.
I don't see that as a fundamental flaw in the system, though, which many people do. To the extent that litigation is a rich man's game, find ways to balance the playing fields. With competent, ethical counsel, I believe the field to be really quite balanced. Of course, I don't practice copyright litigation and could certainly be missing more of the picture than presented here. But from my perspective, competence is all it takes for the field to be balanced, modulo bad statutes.
That's true, with two caveats. First, legal precedent can be persuasive on other courts even though it is not binding on them - in the absence of binding precedent and where the other court is arguably right, agreeing with that other court is the more common outcome. Sometimes, you'll see a court that appears to have a mentor court with how often it cites to that other court's decisions in reaching its own. And there's nothing wrong with that - for hundreds of years, American and English courts cited each other with favor, notwithstanding ongoing wars and political hatred.
Second, despite the fears of many Slashdotters, there is no such thing as factual precedent being binding on a court's decisions in unrelated lawsuits. The legal precedent here is the million-dollar question being asked and permitted, although it's not going to go anywhere because of a critical problem: There was no objection. If you don't object to evidence, you can't appeal based on its being admitted. And without the legal decision of whether to sustain your objection, there is no real precedent to work from.
Your argument is non sequitur. The American legal system is not without flaws, but it is not simply about buying justice. The American legal system is the only voice that some destitute people have. The problem with the RIAA cases is that Congress has enacted laws that impose statutory damages for copyright violations. The reason that was done was because it was historically impossible to prove actual damages if your short story was copied without license. It is still sensible for that reason, but in the RIAA cases it is arguably obsolete and capricious. The system of justice is not flawed simply because it is compelled by Congress to obey a statute that is.
Hear hear. The single most obnoxious and quixotic attorney I've ever dealt with is a top-3 law school graduate. In order to graduate from a prestigious law school, one need only be admitted. (For instance, I believe that Yale Law no longer bothers with letter grades.) Admission is based on many factors, none of which are your ability to pay attention during a trial and object in a tactically sound manner or your ability to think strategically to resolve your client's problems.
Some of the best attorneys went to some of the least-known law schools. The truth of the matter is that excellence in the law cannot be measured by a piece of paper hanging in your office. I have never had a client look around my office to find out how good I am based on those pieces of paper. And the first one who does, I will probably refuse to represent just because it is a pretty good indicator that he is going to be a high-maintenance client with certain unreasonable expectations, which cannot be broken. A client's unreasonable expectations are among an attorney's biggest enemies.
Simply put: Where a person got his J.D. has even less bearing on his talents than where you get your C.Sci. degree.
If you want to live your life based on avoiding a judgment, then by all means ignore a summons for a lawsuit. I try not to live under rain clouds that require me to carry a 90-pound umbrella around to avoid. But it's a personal choice, I will gladly acknowledge that.
Judgments can be executed against personal property in most (probably all) American jurisdictions. Having a substantial portion of your wages garnished for 20 years is also hardly a laughing matter.
It's not usually a crime to ignore a civil summons. It's just a really, really bad idea. The most likely outcome is judgment by default being taken against you, a short hearing on damages being held where the plaintiff tells the judge how much the damages are and you are not around to say otherwise, and judgment being entered for those damages. The next thing that happens is an execution on your property. You'll be entitled to certain exemptions, depending on your jurisdiction, but you'll likely have little left and your wages will be garnished for the next 10 or 20 years.
No kidding. Three moderators gave it negative votes and at least one Anonymous Coward saw fit to take it seriously and reply derisively. Rule of thumb: If you don't personally have a sense of humor, at least take into account whether a comment is in response to a +5 Funny comment before you decide whether it's serious.
Well, we do have a lot of different species for just one planet. Asians, bears, ducks, Jews, deer, and Hispanics, all trying to live together? It doesn't make any sense unless it's for someone's amusement.
There are many ways, but someone incapable of correctly repeating even three letters properly (my name is not Arj, nor could any person with better than a first-grade education believe it to be based on my screen name ari_j) is most likely uninterested in being polite, mostly for lack of any idea what the term might mean.
Of course, your repeated inability to read and comprehend even the most basic points of this discussion should have been sufficient notification to me that your response would be childish, for values of 'child' approaching Baby K with an anger management problem.
I hope that you've gained from the above lesson in politely being told to go fuck yourself, you retarded infant.
That makes it only that much more foolish. It appears that his entire response has been to e-mail the lawyers repeatedly (and, given the writing quality of his public web page addressing them, one can't expect those e-mails to be a whole lot better). The web page could also be used as an exhibit to an affidavit of default presented to the court, showing that the guy had received effective service of the lawsuit and showed nothing but contempt for the court in response.
I am deeply concerned for the moderators who gave positive points to the comment saying to ignore the lawsuit until there is a hearing on it and negative points to my comment debunking that advice.
If you receive service of a summons for a lawsuit, the summons will inform you of what steps you need to take to avoid a default judgment being obtained against you. It does not matter how frivolous the lawsuit is, if you are served with it and fail to obey the rules, you will end up not being entitled to defend yourself in court and you will be in a very bad situation at the end of the day.
The original point, which was that the East Texas legislators need to fix their laws that allow this to happen, is still ludicrous. No Texas legislator, at the state or federal level, can change how federal jury selection works. If you want them to change how venue shopping works, that's been a problem for a long time that does from time to time get legislative attention.
I never once called for a professional response. I simply said that an inappropriate, juvenile, profanity-filled response is not a good idea. It does not take an attorney to be able to respond to something without becoming a melodramatic child about it as this guy did. If the "average person" is incapable of rational thought, then there are bigger problems than the legal system at work.
Slashdot Mirror
Count yourself among the blessed. There's nothing wrong with finding fulfillment at work. It just can't be the only concern you ever have in finding a job. Once you have food on the table and a roof over your head, you can start being more picky about the next job you take. Not before.
If you didn't have the highest grade in a course, it's because someone else taking that course was smarter than you or just worked harder.
I was going to stuff the "job bank" binders at my law school with McDonald's applications as a joke, but I decided not to because it would be unethical to encourage some of those idiots to be near hot grills and food that would reach the public.
No no no. You've got it wrong. If you have a 2.7 GPA, claim you spent your entire first three years drunk out of your mind, sobered up, and then in two semesters worked your way up to a 2.7 cumulative GPA. It demonstrates a current willingness and ability to work your ass off to accomplish something.
She couldn't get a lawyer. Please don't blame the lawyers.
What I don't get, though, is why you think that an unearned sense of entitlement is not itself part and parcel of lack of moral character.
There are two good ways to get a 2.7 GPA. You can either be less intelligent than those around you or you can be lazier. Given that she brags up her "solid attendance record," it's safe to say that she is in the camp who think that showing up is enough. Guess what, kids: Showing up is not enough. You have to work hard to succeed, both in school and beyond. Your 2.7 GPA shows one of two things to potential employers (you are either stupid or lazy), and your "solid attendance record" confirms that you will show up to work at 9 and leave at 5 every day, probably accomplishing nothing at all while you're there.
If I weren't so convinced that humans as a species are incapable of it, I would tell this girl to be objective for a minute. Step outside of yourself and answer the question, "Would I hire me?"
Agreed. Three months of searching for a job is nothing. When I got my C.Sci degree, I spent 3 months searching for a job across 2 states. Finding none, I moved across the country and searched another 3 months. I finally found a job doing IT for a bank and took it, spending all available downtime looking for a better job for the next 9 months. After 15 months of unsuccessful pavement-pounding, I had a decision to make: I could either wait out the economy a bit in my shitty IT job or I could change my career path.
So many people claim they have "tried" things. Tried to find a job. Tried to make a marriage work. Tried to resolve family conflicts. Tried, my ass. If you have not actively done something for at least a year, you have not tried it any more than dipping your toes in the water and crying aloud about how cold it is constitutes trying to swim.
+1 regarding "dream jobs." So many people I know have gone to graduate school or bounced from job to job, their sole reason being "I am not fulfilled at work." Work is not about fulfillment. If you are fulfilled at your job more than one hour a week, I congratulate you, but for almost all of us work is not about being fulfilled - work is about paying for the things that are fulfilling. You can't fill your bookshelves, music collection, passport, or photo albums for free. Find a job that you are good at and do it. Then, take the money you make and go find some fulfillment in life.
If you do it right, you'll eventually find equilibrium in a career that you are proud of and have a positive experience, but you'll still long for fulfillment outside of work.
But no matter your eventually ending up in a dream job of some sort, remember that there are two ways to get there: (1) Work your way up from the trenches or (2) time it so you can yourself in an economic bubble that, just like an actual dream, you will wake up from stiff and sore with the same old shitty job waiting for you. If you are too lazy to prove yourself, the chances are good that you're also too lazy to actually do the dream job to begin with.
I don't see that as a fundamental flaw in the system, though, which many people do. To the extent that litigation is a rich man's game, find ways to balance the playing fields. With competent, ethical counsel, I believe the field to be really quite balanced. Of course, I don't practice copyright litigation and could certainly be missing more of the picture than presented here. But from my perspective, competence is all it takes for the field to be balanced, modulo bad statutes.
That's true, with two caveats. First, legal precedent can be persuasive on other courts even though it is not binding on them - in the absence of binding precedent and where the other court is arguably right, agreeing with that other court is the more common outcome. Sometimes, you'll see a court that appears to have a mentor court with how often it cites to that other court's decisions in reaching its own. And there's nothing wrong with that - for hundreds of years, American and English courts cited each other with favor, notwithstanding ongoing wars and political hatred.
Second, despite the fears of many Slashdotters, there is no such thing as factual precedent being binding on a court's decisions in unrelated lawsuits. The legal precedent here is the million-dollar question being asked and permitted, although it's not going to go anywhere because of a critical problem: There was no objection. If you don't object to evidence, you can't appeal based on its being admitted. And without the legal decision of whether to sustain your objection, there is no real precedent to work from.
Your argument is non sequitur. The American legal system is not without flaws, but it is not simply about buying justice. The American legal system is the only voice that some destitute people have. The problem with the RIAA cases is that Congress has enacted laws that impose statutory damages for copyright violations. The reason that was done was because it was historically impossible to prove actual damages if your short story was copied without license. It is still sensible for that reason, but in the RIAA cases it is arguably obsolete and capricious. The system of justice is not flawed simply because it is compelled by Congress to obey a statute that is.
Hear hear. The single most obnoxious and quixotic attorney I've ever dealt with is a top-3 law school graduate. In order to graduate from a prestigious law school, one need only be admitted. (For instance, I believe that Yale Law no longer bothers with letter grades.) Admission is based on many factors, none of which are your ability to pay attention during a trial and object in a tactically sound manner or your ability to think strategically to resolve your client's problems.
Some of the best attorneys went to some of the least-known law schools. The truth of the matter is that excellence in the law cannot be measured by a piece of paper hanging in your office. I have never had a client look around my office to find out how good I am based on those pieces of paper. And the first one who does, I will probably refuse to represent just because it is a pretty good indicator that he is going to be a high-maintenance client with certain unreasonable expectations, which cannot be broken. A client's unreasonable expectations are among an attorney's biggest enemies.
Simply put: Where a person got his J.D. has even less bearing on his talents than where you get your C.Sci. degree.
If you want to live your life based on avoiding a judgment, then by all means ignore a summons for a lawsuit. I try not to live under rain clouds that require me to carry a 90-pound umbrella around to avoid. But it's a personal choice, I will gladly acknowledge that.
Judgments can be executed against personal property in most (probably all) American jurisdictions. Having a substantial portion of your wages garnished for 20 years is also hardly a laughing matter.
In what jurisdiction are you that ignoring a civil summons is a criminal act? Can you point to the statute criminalizing it?
It's not usually a crime to ignore a civil summons. It's just a really, really bad idea. The most likely outcome is judgment by default being taken against you, a short hearing on damages being held where the plaintiff tells the judge how much the damages are and you are not around to say otherwise, and judgment being entered for those damages. The next thing that happens is an execution on your property. You'll be entitled to certain exemptions, depending on your jurisdiction, but you'll likely have little left and your wages will be garnished for the next 10 or 20 years.
No kidding. Three moderators gave it negative votes and at least one Anonymous Coward saw fit to take it seriously and reply derisively. Rule of thumb: If you don't personally have a sense of humor, at least take into account whether a comment is in response to a +5 Funny comment before you decide whether it's serious.
Well, we do have a lot of different species for just one planet. Asians, bears, ducks, Jews, deer, and Hispanics, all trying to live together? It doesn't make any sense unless it's for someone's amusement.
Your illiteracy does not make the things you cannot read false. Good luck out there.
I knew you'd miss the lesson. I even said as much in giving it. At least you have excuses for some of your failings. Those will get you far in life.
There are many ways, but someone incapable of correctly repeating even three letters properly (my name is not Arj, nor could any person with better than a first-grade education believe it to be based on my screen name ari_j) is most likely uninterested in being polite, mostly for lack of any idea what the term might mean.
Of course, your repeated inability to read and comprehend even the most basic points of this discussion should have been sufficient notification to me that your response would be childish, for values of 'child' approaching Baby K with an anger management problem.
I hope that you've gained from the above lesson in politely being told to go fuck yourself, you retarded infant.
I was thinking the same thing. For anyone who doesn't remember, troff is not just a text formatter.
That makes it only that much more foolish. It appears that his entire response has been to e-mail the lawyers repeatedly (and, given the writing quality of his public web page addressing them, one can't expect those e-mails to be a whole lot better). The web page could also be used as an exhibit to an affidavit of default presented to the court, showing that the guy had received effective service of the lawsuit and showed nothing but contempt for the court in response.
I am deeply concerned for the moderators who gave positive points to the comment saying to ignore the lawsuit until there is a hearing on it and negative points to my comment debunking that advice.
If you receive service of a summons for a lawsuit, the summons will inform you of what steps you need to take to avoid a default judgment being obtained against you. It does not matter how frivolous the lawsuit is, if you are served with it and fail to obey the rules, you will end up not being entitled to defend yourself in court and you will be in a very bad situation at the end of the day.
The original point, which was that the East Texas legislators need to fix their laws that allow this to happen, is still ludicrous. No Texas legislator, at the state or federal level, can change how federal jury selection works. If you want them to change how venue shopping works, that's been a problem for a long time that does from time to time get legislative attention.
I never once called for a professional response. I simply said that an inappropriate, juvenile, profanity-filled response is not a good idea. It does not take an attorney to be able to respond to something without becoming a melodramatic child about it as this guy did. If the "average person" is incapable of rational thought, then there are bigger problems than the legal system at work.