I do not appreciate being called a liar. I saw the ballot. I filled in the ballot and mailed it.
I did not call you a liar. I said that you were wrong. Name your county in Texas as we can see exactly which state and local races your ballot included. Or don't -- anyone selecting multiple counties on that site can identify the state-wide races that were on your ballot for themselves.
It can most certainly work that way. If States indeed choose to count absentee ballots when they can only make a difference in the outcome, that would make some economical sense.
No, it cannot, because the ballots cover multiple races at each of the national, state, and local levels. Also, various laws are based on percentage thresholds of all persons who, for example, voted for governor in a state (referendum petition signature requirements, for example). Finally, they do not. EVER.
Name your state, and I can cite the state code section that requires the counting of absentee votes after some trivial research. On the other hand, I have no fear that you'll be able to cite even a single U.S. law that permits what you've proposed.
Most importantly, my own ballot only had two races on it.
Provably wrong. Name your county, and we can even look it up for you.
Some years ago, it was actually reported that the election boards in Texas did NOT count the absentee ballots unless there were enough of them to potentially change the outcome of some race. Of course, in those days there were far fewer absentee ballots...
Sec. 87.1231. EARLY VOTING VOTES REPORTED BY PRECINCT. Not later than the time of the local canvass, the early voting clerk shall deliver to the local canvassing authority a report of the total number of early voting votes for each candidate or measure by election precinct. The report may reflect the total for votes by mail and the total for votes by personal appearance.
Section 81 states that "A reference in a law outside this code to 'absentee voting' means 'early voting'," in the event that you have any additional doubts.
If it really works that way (and I could not find information to prove or disprove that theory), they might have a point.
But it doesn't really work that way, and if you applied even an iota of critical thinking, you'd realize why it can't.
Did you vote on Tuesday? Did your ballot really only have a single multiple choice item for President of the United States? Because mine didn't. My had president, senator, representative, state senator, state representative, city council member, state supreme court justice (multiple), municipal court justice (multiple), family court justice (one or two), and multiple local millages.
My wife's absentee ballot, being that she lives with me and all, was identical. Which means that whether Trump defeated HRC by several hundred thousand votes or a few hundred, there were many other races where her vote was relevant to the outcome, and the presidential election was not the end-all-be-all of whether all those little bubbles would be scanned by the county's equipment.
"The media often will report the projected outcome of the election before all of the ballots are counted. In a close election, the media may report that the outcome cannot be announced until after the absentee ballots are counted. However, all ballots, including absentee ballots, are counted in the final totals for every election - and every vote (absentee or in-person) counts the same."
The ability to project a winner in a top-of-ballot race does not eliminate the need to count absentee ballots in all other races.
And suspicion is reinforced by their (The Verge) obvious attempt to discredit the messenger by noting (Michael also believes that Trump has been singled out by God to be president of the United States).
Tell you what, why don't you actually telephone your county board of elections as ask them yourself rather than settling for discrediting the messenger only when it suits you.
The Representation of the People Act of 2002 made it a crime to report exit poll results before a state's polls have closed.
Who on earth moderated this as informative? There is no such thing as the "Representation of the People Act of 2002," unless you happen to be living in India.
There is an informal agreement among U.S. media outlets to hold back exit polling results until the polls close in a state -- which, incidentally, Fox News broke in 2014 in certain respects.
There is a constitutional amendment you may have heard of that sets a really, REALLY high bar for any law which would prevent the news media from reporting information. It is completely legal to report exit poll results before a state's polls have closed. The proof: the linked article.
Your rebuttal: point to a U.S. federal or state law, by title or code section, that says otherwise. Go...
That's not the complete corresponding source code to everything in the executable.
If you were as awesome as your paranoia suggests than you wouldn't need source code in addition to the debugger, now would you?
Step through the program and capture the traffic like a real security researcher. If the obfuscated C contest hasn't already proven that the things that you haven't actually bothered to do with the keepass source code can't save you, nothing will.
You beat me to it. Freedom of association is a wonderful thing to the left when it means boycotts and riots. In business and public schools? Not so much.
You're free to become a closed-membership baker. The fact that it's commercially infeasible is your own problem. If you want to sell to the public, then you have to sell to the entire public, not just white anglo-saxon protestant straights.
Next thing you know they'll demand that businesses sell to blacks. The nerve of some people...
Except that your smartphone has a dedicated piece of hardware listening for the activation phrase. Your battery would drop faster than a Samsung battery explodes if it was surveilling you like an Echo.
the rate we purchase new phones, when the ones we have already are more than adequate, is a bigger travesty. so the note 7 had an accelerated eol, i think if people should be more concerned with the motto we learned when we were young, reduce/reuse/recycle, and actually do that instead of "oh new shiny, must get" fucking people
Now there's the answer, it seems: Use the things longer. You don't need a new phone every year. Oooh... iPhone 7.... gotta have it.... until the iPhone 8 comes out 12 months later.
Keep them until they wear out. Yes, there's an issue with limited recharging cycles... but replaceable batteries should be the norm. Yes, there's an issue with software updates.... vendors need to be more responsible about that.
Facts be damned. First, the iPhone doesn't change major versions every 12 months, but rather every 24 months. Second, if you take decent care of your phone, it will not "wear out" before an amount of time has elapsed where virtually everyone will agree that it is functionally obsolete (e.g., my iPhone 4 that is now used as a glorified iPod and still going strong). Third, there's a secondary market for functioning non-obsolete phones; Gazelle is not offering $50 for good condition iPhone 5 16GB units (now up to 4 years old) only to landfill them or scrap them for $5 in recoverable materials.
Buy a new phone when you want a new phone. Someone will buy your old phone because they don't want to buy a new phone, just as I buy used cars because I don't want to buy a new car. Only a moron would think that Samsung's environmental problems in removing spontaneously combusting phones from the market are remotely analogous to the environmental impact of someone flipping a one or two year old telephone into the used market. Secondary buyers "deserve" flagship-type phones as much as the original buyers; many are simply willing to wait for them to become used.
Dollars to donuts I can find something you do that seems wasteful, unnecessary, and irresponsible. Just like you two have with phone upgrades. Odds are even better that it has a higher environmental impact, like your house in the suburbs, your two hour commute, or your air conditioning. You're not going to like those answers...
If your businessâ(TM) payment-system implementation is relatively simple with few or no customizations, then most of the Level 3 certification may not apply to your business. This includes simple implementations like single terminals, as well as specific, pre-made software packages that are certified to handle EMV transactions without heavy customization.
So for small places there is no onsite certification.. For some larger, and especially for the ones that do customizations there is a requirement for the site-certification
I must have missed the official announcement that "most" actually means "all."
"No onsite certification" is bunk. There is a suite of scripts that have to be run at each deployment to check for functionality and security. The Intuit material also says:
Level 3 is an end-to-end certification conducted between the merchant and the brand, with checks made with your processor, acquirer and any ISV(s) you are working with. It checks the integrity of the payment chain by testing every type of possible transaction that the terminal can do.
Depending on the types of transactions and CVMs you want to process, you could be looking at upwards of a few hundred tests, especially if you accept all four brands.
The problem is that EMVCo has been riding the "too may businesses waited to schedule certification until the deadline" excuse for more than a year -- as if that wasn't entirely predictable from the start. EMVCo is also owned by Mastercard and VISA (and JCB), which don't exactly have a lot of incentive to speed up the certification process now that transaction liability can be shifted to the retailers (they're not banks, but the banks are their largest and highest volume customers). They've cut down the number of testing scripts required and changed the rules to prevent chargebacks for low dollar transactions ($25), but otherwise haven't addressed the delays and their backlog of certification work.
I woud suspect it was something like a epitaxial layer of safire to coat a glass lens. In fact, depending on how the measurement was done, the lens could be safire. Glass is a generic term to mean a substrate that is not a single crystal, and could be of many compositions, including Aluminum Oxide doped with titanium.
I'm sorry, but the specification "sapphire crystal lens cover" in ordinary English would mean that the principal component of the lens cover is sapphire crystal. Not a sapphire crystal epitaxial coating on a glass lens cover ("sapphire crystal-coated lens cover" or "sapphire-coated glass lens cover"), nor a "sapphire glass" lens cover.
GP quoted and linked to the specification. All that you're doing is proving the point of the article -- that the claims and specifications are materially misleading.
You're smoking dope, and they're feeding you a line. The software has to be certified, but even then, not by deployment. And for a small business, that's handled by the point of sale vendor, not the merchant.
You misssed the part where he had the box conveniently ready to include in the shot. It's like he knew what was going to happen.
You missed the part where the box is in a separate image against a different background. Almost like a picture that you'd take of your phone box after purchase so that you'd have serial number and IMEI information easily available in case the phone was stolen for things like insurance claims.
Regardless their race, if some morons want to live in the middle of the wildness it's not everyone else's job to spend a ton of resources getting them reliable internet.
The mining operations employing Canadians and paying royalties to the Canadian government might disagree with you here. Nevermind the fact that if you intend to regulate use of the Northwest passage, you're going to have to establish redundant wireless communications modes anyway.
If I receive another from the same vendor, I go to Amazon and give them a one-star review. If you do this too (and I hope you do) then do NOT mention the spam as a reason for the bad review. If you do that, Amazon will remove the review, since reviews must be about the product and not the company selling it. So just make something up instead.
You blockhead. They do that because, I assume, you are reviewing THE PRODUCT through a PRODUCT REVIEW. Your review will appear under THE PRODUCT listing on Amazon, which is used by both Amazon, that Marketplace vendor, and all the other Marketplace vendors.
You honestly haven't figured this out yet? Despite the fact that when you search for the product it displays an Amazon purchase link (usually) and things like "24 new from $XXX.XX" and "5 used from $XX.XX"?
You want to go to your order history, click on the order, and magically there will appear a button labeled "Seller Feedback." Seller feedback is expressly supposed to be about the company selling it, so I'm not going to buy any cover-your-*ss follow-up that claims that you were referring to that button.
Hint: there's also a "Package feedback" button that you can use to complain about Amazon's packaging for the Amazon warehouse-fulfilled orders, which might actually provide feedback to the people who packaged the order.
Stop polluting the product reviews with made up issues because you can't be bothered to figure out how to review a vendor properly.
RTFA. This procedure is illegal in the USA, so the parents went to Mexico. This baby IS an immigrant.
1. The article says that this is a Jordanian couple who sought treatment from U.S. doctors, and that the U.S. doctors chose to perform their work in Mexico.
2. The article doesn't suggest that anyone was an immigrant anywhere (def'n: "a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.). People appear to have temporarily traveled to do stuff, then returned to their respective homes. So, the baby is an immigrant to where? The parents' home country? Because?
3. Finally, there's this little thing called citizenship by birth, which the not terribly reliable but readable-by-non-arabic-speaking-me source suggests is automatic for this child. Your own country, by definition, is not a foreign country, which means that you cannot be an immigrant to it. Similarly, for a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent in wedlock, odds are pretty good that they're already a U.S. citizen, falling on the "Nationality" side of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Are you a complete idiot? Not one of your references supports your point.
Then you should actually read the cases, not merely the conclusions.
Muggill: "With certain exceptions not relevant here, section 16600 of the Business and Professions Code provides that "every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void." This section invalidates provisions in employment contracts prohibiting an employee from working for a competitor after completion of his employment or imposing a penalty if he does so (Chamberlain v. Augustine, 172 Cal. 285, 288 [156 P. 479]; Morris v. Harris, 127 Cal.App.2d 476, 478 [274 P.2d 22]; Davis v. Jointless Fire Brick Co., 300 F. 1, 4), unless they are necessary to protect the employer's trade secrets (Gordon v. Landau, 49 Cal.2d 690, 694 [321 P.2d 456])."
Edwards: "4 We do not here address the applicability of the so-called trade secret exception to section 16600, as Edwards does not dispute that portion of his agreement or contend that the provision of the noncompetition agreement prohibiting him from recruiting Andersenâ(TM)s employees violated section 16600."
You keep bringing up side issues like "inevitable disclosure," yet Muggill says what it says, applies where it applies, and continues to do so.
If you sign a contact to work for me for a year, and you break the contract, I can indeed pursue you for damages. If some other party, like Netflix, is aware of the contract and induces you to break it, I can pursue them for damages and an injunction to prevent future poaching. Nothing in California law prohibits an employee from agreeing to employment for a term, and crying about California's theories concerning non-competes is not a defense to that claim.
The reason for this is that 180 to 190 degrees fahrenheit is the proper serving temperature for coffee.
No it is not.
The proper serving temperature for coffee is about 140 F according to the National Coffee Association, you know, the people who are more interested in the quality of the coffee than how far you can carry the coffee while staying above that temperature in poorly insulated cheap paper cups.
Name one organization that advocates serving coffee at 180 F, and provide a link. You won't be able to find one.
As to the rest: 1. A business principal is an owner, partner, or other person with a material fractional interest in the business and an ability to control. I don't know where you're getting your definition of business principal from, but they mean the same thing. BPC 16601 specifically states:
"For the purposes of this section, "owner of a business entity" means any partner, in the case of a business entity that is a partnership... or any member, in the case of a business entity that is a limited liability company... or any owner of capital stock in the case of a business entity that is a corporation."
2. California does have a trade secrets exception; you need to read Muggill v. Reuben H. Donnelley Corp -- Edwards v. Arthur Andersen expressly refused to eliminate that exception.
3. CEOs and other executive level staff are far more likely to have knowledge of trade secrets, and to be expected to use that knowledge in new positions. It is not a slam dunk that you can exclude an executive level employee from employment in another business (and you can't in businesses in different fields or positions with different responsibilities within the same field), but if the responsibilities of the new position require exploiting the old trade secret knowledge, you can effectively enjoin that use and, as a result, exlcude that person from that job.
I understand "bright line rule" just fine. I also understand that there is no bright line rule like the one that you suggest, that the BPA exceptions are broader than you believe, and that the trade secret exception to your so-called "bright line rule" still exists and is enforced in California.
I merely allow for the possibility that he could be excluded from the job (technically, performing certain job responsibilities) under California law, you're the one arguing that there's no possible way for that to happen. You're wrong. You can't point to one California court decision that states otherwise, and, no, court decisions which don't even discuss trade secrets issues do not suffice to show that Muggill does not apply.
you can't stop someone from working for a competitor just because you fear that they may reveal trade secrets
It all depends upon how objectively reasonable that fear is. I suggest that you begin by reading the cases that actually cite Muggill, rather than implicitly trusting a spamvertisement page that completely misrepresents the Dowell decision. That court said:
"Although we doubt the continued viability of the common law trade secret exception to covenants not to compete, we need not resolve the issue here. Even assuming the exception exists, we agree with the trial court that it has no application here. This is so because the noncompete and nonsolicitation clauses in the agreements are not narrowly tailored or carefully limited to the protection of trade secrets, but are so broadly worded as to restrain competition"
The California Court of Appeal can doubt all it wants, but it can't overrule the California Supreme Court. Until the latter overrules Muggill, it remains the law.
Yes, it's just as well that you are not providing legal services:
Not really. He's said the exact same thing that you have, he said it first, and you've simply failed to appreciate that he had.
You might want to google the term "business principal." You should also be aware that another of the exceptions involves trade secrets, which executive level employees are far more likely to know (and reuse) than non-executive employees. Just as GP said, it's not a slam dunk with an EVP by any means, but you're equally wrong in ignoring the other CA exceptions.
Slashdot Mirror
I did not call you a liar. I said that you were wrong. Name your county in Texas as we can see exactly which state and local races your ballot included. Or don't -- anyone selecting multiple counties on that site can identify the state-wide races that were on your ballot for themselves.
No, it cannot, because the ballots cover multiple races at each of the national, state, and local levels. Also, various laws are based on percentage thresholds of all persons who, for example, voted for governor in a state (referendum petition signature requirements, for example). Finally, they do not. EVER.
Name your state, and I can cite the state code section that requires the counting of absentee votes after some trivial research. On the other hand, I have no fear that you'll be able to cite even a single U.S. law that permits what you've proposed.
Provably wrong. Name your county, and we can even look it up for you.
Well then, that reporting was wrong as well.
Section 81 states that "A reference in a law outside this code to 'absentee voting' means 'early voting'," in the event that you have any additional doubts.
But it doesn't really work that way, and if you applied even an iota of critical thinking, you'd realize why it can't.
Did you vote on Tuesday? Did your ballot really only have a single multiple choice item for President of the United States? Because mine didn't. My had president, senator, representative, state senator, state representative, city council member, state supreme court justice (multiple), municipal court justice (multiple), family court justice (one or two), and multiple local millages.
My wife's absentee ballot, being that she lives with me and all, was identical. Which means that whether Trump defeated HRC by several hundred thousand votes or a few hundred, there were many other races where her vote was relevant to the outcome, and the presidential election was not the end-all-be-all of whether all those little bubbles would be scanned by the county's equipment.
Your inability to find governmental information concerning this myth is as ridiculous as this Michael nonsense.
"The media often will report the projected outcome of the election before all of the ballots are counted. In a close election, the media may report that the outcome cannot be announced until after the absentee ballots are counted. However, all ballots, including absentee ballots, are counted in the final totals for every election - and every vote (absentee or in-person) counts the same."
The ability to project a winner in a top-of-ballot race does not eliminate the need to count absentee ballots in all other races.
Tell you what, why don't you actually telephone your county board of elections as ask them yourself rather than settling for discrediting the messenger only when it suits you.
Who on earth moderated this as informative? There is no such thing as the "Representation of the People Act of 2002," unless you happen to be living in India.
There is an informal agreement among U.S. media outlets to hold back exit polling results until the polls close in a state -- which, incidentally, Fox News broke in 2014 in certain respects.
There is a constitutional amendment you may have heard of that sets a really, REALLY high bar for any law which would prevent the news media from reporting information. It is completely legal to report exit poll results before a state's polls have closed. The proof: the linked article.
Your rebuttal: point to a U.S. federal or state law, by title or code section, that says otherwise. Go...
If you were as awesome as your paranoia suggests than you wouldn't need source code in addition to the debugger, now would you?
Step through the program and capture the traffic like a real security researcher. If the obfuscated C contest hasn't already proven that the things that you haven't actually bothered to do with the keepass source code can't save you, nothing will.
You're free to become a closed-membership baker. The fact that it's commercially infeasible is your own problem. If you want to sell to the public, then you have to sell to the entire public, not just white anglo-saxon protestant straights.
Next thing you know they'll demand that businesses sell to blacks. The nerve of some people...
Funny, that's how the Echo works as well.
Facts be damned. First, the iPhone doesn't change major versions every 12 months, but rather every 24 months. Second, if you take decent care of your phone, it will not "wear out" before an amount of time has elapsed where virtually everyone will agree that it is functionally obsolete (e.g., my iPhone 4 that is now used as a glorified iPod and still going strong). Third, there's a secondary market for functioning non-obsolete phones; Gazelle is not offering $50 for good condition iPhone 5 16GB units (now up to 4 years old) only to landfill them or scrap them for $5 in recoverable materials.
Buy a new phone when you want a new phone. Someone will buy your old phone because they don't want to buy a new phone, just as I buy used cars because I don't want to buy a new car. Only a moron would think that Samsung's environmental problems in removing spontaneously combusting phones from the market are remotely analogous to the environmental impact of someone flipping a one or two year old telephone into the used market. Secondary buyers "deserve" flagship-type phones as much as the original buyers; many are simply willing to wait for them to become used.
Dollars to donuts I can find something you do that seems wasteful, unnecessary, and irresponsible. Just like you two have with phone upgrades. Odds are even better that it has a higher environmental impact, like your house in the suburbs, your two hour commute, or your air conditioning. You're not going to like those answers...
I'm sure they worked more than you to make it. Opt out and file a claim for yourself if you're so insulted - then you can keep it all for yourself.
I must have missed the official announcement that "most" actually means "all."
"No onsite certification" is bunk. There is a suite of scripts that have to be run at each deployment to check for functionality and security. The Intuit material also says:
The problem is that EMVCo has been riding the "too may businesses waited to schedule certification until the deadline" excuse for more than a year -- as if that wasn't entirely predictable from the start. EMVCo is also owned by Mastercard and VISA (and JCB), which don't exactly have a lot of incentive to speed up the certification process now that transaction liability can be shifted to the retailers (they're not banks, but the banks are their largest and highest volume customers). They've cut down the number of testing scripts required and changed the rules to prevent chargebacks for low dollar transactions ($25), but otherwise haven't addressed the delays and their backlog of certification work.
I'm sorry, but the specification "sapphire crystal lens cover" in ordinary English would mean that the principal component of the lens cover is sapphire crystal. Not a sapphire crystal epitaxial coating on a glass lens cover ("sapphire crystal-coated lens cover" or "sapphire-coated glass lens cover"), nor a "sapphire glass" lens cover.
GP quoted and linked to the specification. All that you're doing is proving the point of the article -- that the claims and specifications are materially misleading.
Now explain why the POS vendors are losing revenue due to certification delays. Is is your theory that they're tanking their business to support the line? Or selling the dope? My theory is that you simply don't understand that level 3 certification is literally by deployment and too self-satisfied to consider that you might be wrong.
You missed the part where the box is in a separate image against a different background. Almost like a picture that you'd take of your phone box after purchase so that you'd have serial number and IMEI information easily available in case the phone was stolen for things like insurance claims.
Idiot.
The mining operations employing Canadians and paying royalties to the Canadian government might disagree with you here. Nevermind the fact that if you intend to regulate use of the Northwest passage, you're going to have to establish redundant wireless communications modes anyway.
You blockhead. They do that because, I assume, you are reviewing THE PRODUCT through a PRODUCT REVIEW. Your review will appear under THE PRODUCT listing on Amazon, which is used by both Amazon, that Marketplace vendor, and all the other Marketplace vendors.
You honestly haven't figured this out yet? Despite the fact that when you search for the product it displays an Amazon purchase link (usually) and things like "24 new from $XXX.XX" and "5 used from $XX.XX"?
You want to go to your order history, click on the order, and magically there will appear a button labeled "Seller Feedback." Seller feedback is expressly supposed to be about the company selling it, so I'm not going to buy any cover-your-*ss follow-up that claims that you were referring to that button.
Hint: there's also a "Package feedback" button that you can use to complain about Amazon's packaging for the Amazon warehouse-fulfilled orders, which might actually provide feedback to the people who packaged the order.
Stop polluting the product reviews with made up issues because you can't be bothered to figure out how to review a vendor properly.
1. The article says that this is a Jordanian couple who sought treatment from U.S. doctors, and that the U.S. doctors chose to perform their work in Mexico.
2. The article doesn't suggest that anyone was an immigrant anywhere (def'n: "a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.). People appear to have temporarily traveled to do stuff, then returned to their respective homes. So, the baby is an immigrant to where? The parents' home country? Because?
3. Finally, there's this little thing called citizenship by birth, which the not terribly reliable but readable-by-non-arabic-speaking-me source suggests is automatic for this child. Your own country, by definition, is not a foreign country, which means that you cannot be an immigrant to it. Similarly, for a child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent in wedlock, odds are pretty good that they're already a U.S. citizen, falling on the "Nationality" side of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Enlighten us as to what that is, why don't you.
I want my $2!
Signed, an earlier reference from an even better era of entertainment.
Perfectly fine colloquial English to those Oxford folks as well.
Yes, because lower courts simply and routinely ignore statements of law that appear in their respective supreme court decisions as "dicta."
I'll go back to practicing law for a living now. It's hard to afford light bulbs on six figures...
Then you should actually read the cases, not merely the conclusions.
Muggill:
"With certain exceptions not relevant here, section 16600 of the Business and Professions Code provides that "every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void." This section invalidates provisions in employment contracts prohibiting an employee from working for a competitor after completion of his employment or imposing a penalty if he does so (Chamberlain v. Augustine, 172 Cal. 285, 288 [156 P. 479]; Morris v. Harris, 127 Cal.App.2d 476, 478 [274 P.2d 22]; Davis v. Jointless Fire Brick Co., 300 F. 1, 4), unless they are necessary to protect the employer's trade secrets (Gordon v. Landau, 49 Cal.2d 690, 694 [321 P.2d 456])."
Edwards:
"4 We do not here address the applicability of the so-called trade secret exception to section 16600, as Edwards does not dispute that portion of his
agreement or contend that the provision of the noncompetition agreement prohibiting him from recruiting Andersenâ(TM)s employees violated section 16600."
You keep bringing up side issues like "inevitable disclosure," yet Muggill says what it says, applies where it applies, and continues to do so.
The best part of this argument is that the Fox case doesn't have anything to do with non-compete agreements, but rather Intentional interference with contractual relations.
If you sign a contact to work for me for a year, and you break the contract, I can indeed pursue you for damages. If some other party, like Netflix, is aware of the contract and induces you to break it, I can pursue them for damages and an injunction to prevent future poaching. Nothing in California law prohibits an employee from agreeing to employment for a term, and crying about California's theories concerning non-competes is not a defense to that claim.
No it is not.
The proper serving temperature for coffee is about 140 F according to the National Coffee Association, you know, the people who are more interested in the quality of the coffee than how far you can carry the coffee while staying above that temperature in poorly insulated cheap paper cups.
Name one organization that advocates serving coffee at 180 F, and provide a link. You won't be able to find one.
Your source is wrong.
As to the rest:
1. A business principal is an owner, partner, or other person with a material fractional interest in the business and an ability to control. I don't know where you're getting your definition of business principal from, but they mean the same thing. BPC 16601 specifically states:
"For the purposes of this section, "owner of a business entity" means any partner, in the case of a business entity that is a partnership... or any member, in the case of a business entity that is
a limited liability company... or any owner of capital stock in the case of a business entity that is a corporation."
2. California does have a trade secrets exception; you need to read Muggill v. Reuben H. Donnelley Corp -- Edwards v. Arthur Andersen expressly refused to eliminate that exception.
3. CEOs and other executive level staff are far more likely to have knowledge of trade secrets, and to be expected to use that knowledge in new positions. It is not a slam dunk that you can exclude an executive level employee from employment in another business (and you can't in businesses in different fields or positions with different responsibilities within the same field), but if the responsibilities of the new position require exploiting the old trade secret knowledge, you can effectively enjoin that use and, as a result, exlcude that person from that job.
I understand "bright line rule" just fine. I also understand that there is no bright line rule like the one that you suggest, that the BPA exceptions are broader than you believe, and that the trade secret exception to your so-called "bright line rule" still exists and is enforced in California.
I merely allow for the possibility that he could be excluded from the job (technically, performing certain job responsibilities) under California law, you're the one arguing that there's no possible way for that to happen. You're wrong. You can't point to one California court decision that states otherwise, and, no, court decisions which don't even discuss trade secrets issues do not suffice to show that Muggill does not apply.
It all depends upon how objectively reasonable that fear is. I suggest that you begin by reading the cases that actually cite Muggill, rather than implicitly trusting a spamvertisement page that completely misrepresents the Dowell decision. That court said:
"Although we doubt the continued viability of the common law trade secret exception to covenants not to compete, we need not
resolve the issue here. Even assuming the exception exists, we agree with the trial court that it has no application here. This is
so because the noncompete and nonsolicitation clauses in the agreements are not narrowly tailored or carefully limited to the
protection of trade secrets, but are so broadly worded as to restrain competition"
The California Court of Appeal can doubt all it wants, but it can't overrule the California Supreme Court. Until the latter overrules Muggill, it remains the law.
Not really. He's said the exact same thing that you have, he said it first, and you've simply failed to appreciate that he had.
You might want to google the term "business principal." You should also be aware that another of the exceptions involves trade secrets, which executive level employees are far more likely to know (and reuse) than non-executive employees. Just as GP said, it's not a slam dunk with an EVP by any means, but you're equally wrong in ignoring the other CA exceptions.