No, IT is just like the Legal Department. When they really want "answers" they'll bring in some outside consultant who will charge them an amount equal to your yearly salary for spending two weeks "studying the issues" so they can tell the management honchos just what you've been telling them for ages. Remember, "a prophet is without honor in his own country."
or worse, depending on your point of view. The fines already paid by the 3 companies are for criminal price fixing. The class action suit is a civil suit against for damages that the plaintiffs suffered by having to pay more due to the price fixing. If they can prove their case -- and they can use the information from the criminal suit to help -- the companies will also have to pay damages and, under antitrust laws, the amount of the damages proven are tripled. In other words, the millions these companies have already paid may be a drop in the bucket to what comes next.
Of course, none of this means that the consumers get anything -- even if damages are awarded, you'd have to be able to prove that you purchased DRAM between 1999 and 2002. Hope you kept those receipts, folks.
The text of the USA Patriot Act of 2001(all 132 pages of it) is available as a PDF document on findlaw.com, among other places. The only job-related portions I could find in the Patriot Act apply to employment of foreign nationals and employees of financial institutions. Therefore, the interviewer and his/her agency had probably exceeded any possible permissible use of the Act.
The only recourse you have when someone starts throwing statutes at you as an excuse for what they're doing is to ask them politely to give you the citation to the exact provision. Oh, heck, don't even bother with the politeness; at this point, you're probably pretty sure that you're not going to get the job anyhow.
ROFL, Kadin. Nude volleyball is a big sport in nudist camps and, believe me, it's not pretty! (Nudists cume in all sizes, shames and ages, you know).
I know this is WAY off-topic, but the mental picture made me do it.
Those of you who aren't worried because the government is just going after "terrorists" or "Arabs" or anyone else who isn't you, should remember the lines of a German preacher reflecting on his failure to protest the Nazis' actions.
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me-- and there was no one left to speak out for me.
I assume we're talking about the same FBI that just stopped the plan to blow up the Holland Tunnel by monitoring a chat room where the the suspects were discussing their plans. Of course, all the terrorism experts say that the "plot" would have never worked and that no real terrorists would sit around discussing their plans in an open chat room. Who knows what they'll "find" if they leave the chat rooms?
How could you possibly read Article 2 of the Constitution without first reading Article 1? Under Article 1, Section 8, Congress has the power:
"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; [and] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water"
And neither Congress nor the President gets to trump the First Amendment, which is what the EFF is defending.
Yeah, when the title for this article popped up on my Google page, I was sure it would be about Micros**t. Their WGA initiative sent me right to Kubuntu.
From the article:
"Defining google as a verb and as using the Google search engine is appropriate," a representative for Google told CNET News.com in an e-mail."
That representative should check with Google's legal department - encouraging the use of a trademarked name is a really good way to lose the trademark. That's why Xerox spent megabucks on a campaign to make sure that people used "photocopying" as the verb for making a copy on a Xerox photocopier.
According to the Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a class action would be unlikely to work. The first prerequisite for a class action is:
"Rule 23. Class Actions
(a) PREREQUISITES TO A CLASS ACTION. One or more members of
a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of
all only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members
is impracticable..."
The companies that present financially viable alternatives to PayPal are not likely to be anywhere near this numerous.
The jounalist who wrote that article should have prefaced his definition of "safe harbor" with the old acronym "IANALB" (I am not a lawyer but...). Safe harbors have absolutely nothing to do with good faith; in fact, many of those who utilize safe harbors do so in really bad faith (e.g., tax shelters that are just within the law). A safe harbor is an exception in a regulation which provides that anyone who meets the definition is safe from being in violation of that regulation. The example that nearly everyone recognizes is the concept of "grandfathering"; for example, "every store built after this regulation is in effect must have three clearly marked exits." The two-exit stores existing at the time of the regulation are within a safe harbor.
Send a message to your Hotmail users by snail mail. In that message, have them send you an email from their hotmail account. When they send that message, they'll have the option to add you to their Hotmail contacts by just clicking a check box and "ADD." Once you're one of their contacts, you should be able to send them mail as often as you want.
The library maintains a comment form at http://www.bccls.org/feedback.shtml. Ellen Horn's firm, Ruderman & Glickman, P.C. of Springfield, NJ, doesn't have an internet site (it's "under construction"), but their fax number is (908) 624-6114
Slashdot Mirror
No, IT is just like the Legal Department. When they really want "answers" they'll bring in some outside consultant who will charge them an amount equal to your yearly salary for spending two weeks "studying the issues" so they can tell the management honchos just what you've been telling them for ages. Remember, "a prophet is without honor in his own country."
Of course, none of this means that the consumers get anything -- even if damages are awarded, you'd have to be able to prove that you purchased DRAM between 1999 and 2002. Hope you kept those receipts, folks.
The text of the USA Patriot Act of 2001(all 132 pages of it) is available as a PDF document on findlaw.com, among other places. The only job-related portions I could find in the Patriot Act apply to employment of foreign nationals and employees of financial institutions. Therefore, the interviewer and his/her agency had probably exceeded any possible permissible use of the Act. The only recourse you have when someone starts throwing statutes at you as an excuse for what they're doing is to ask them politely to give you the citation to the exact provision. Oh, heck, don't even bother with the politeness; at this point, you're probably pretty sure that you're not going to get the job anyhow.
ROFL, Kadin. Nude volleyball is a big sport in nudist camps and, believe me, it's not pretty! (Nudists cume in all sizes, shames and ages, you know). I know this is WAY off-topic, but the mental picture made me do it.
Those of you who aren't worried because the government is just going after "terrorists" or "Arabs" or anyone else who isn't you, should remember the lines of a German preacher reflecting on his failure to protest the Nazis' actions.
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
I assume we're talking about the same FBI that just stopped the plan to blow up the Holland Tunnel by monitoring a chat room where the the suspects were discussing their plans. Of course, all the terrorism experts say that the "plot" would have never worked and that no real terrorists would sit around discussing their plans in an open chat room. Who knows what they'll "find" if they leave the chat rooms?
How could you possibly read Article 2 of the Constitution without first reading Article 1? Under Article 1, Section 8, Congress has the power: "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; [and] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water" And neither Congress nor the President gets to trump the First Amendment, which is what the EFF is defending.
Yeah, when the title for this article popped up on my Google page, I was sure it would be about Micros**t. Their WGA initiative sent me right to Kubuntu.
From the article: "Defining google as a verb and as using the Google search engine is appropriate," a representative for Google told CNET News.com in an e-mail." That representative should check with Google's legal department - encouraging the use of a trademarked name is a really good way to lose the trademark. That's why Xerox spent megabucks on a campaign to make sure that people used "photocopying" as the verb for making a copy on a Xerox photocopier.
According to the Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a class action would be unlikely to work. The first prerequisite for a class action is: "Rule 23. Class Actions (a) PREREQUISITES TO A CLASS ACTION. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable..." The companies that present financially viable alternatives to PayPal are not likely to be anywhere near this numerous.
The jounalist who wrote that article should have prefaced his definition of "safe harbor" with the old acronym "IANALB" (I am not a lawyer but...). Safe harbors have absolutely nothing to do with good faith; in fact, many of those who utilize safe harbors do so in really bad faith (e.g., tax shelters that are just within the law). A safe harbor is an exception in a regulation which provides that anyone who meets the definition is safe from being in violation of that regulation. The example that nearly everyone recognizes is the concept of "grandfathering"; for example, "every store built after this regulation is in effect must have three clearly marked exits." The two-exit stores existing at the time of the regulation are within a safe harbor.
Here endeth the rant for the day!
Send a message to your Hotmail users by snail mail. In that message, have them send you an email from their hotmail account. When they send that message, they'll have the option to add you to their Hotmail contacts by just clicking a check box and "ADD." Once you're one of their contacts, you should be able to send them mail as often as you want.
And for addtional comments:
The library maintains a comment form at http://www.bccls.org/feedback.shtml. Ellen Horn's firm, Ruderman & Glickman, P.C. of Springfield, NJ, doesn't have an internet site (it's "under construction"), but their fax number is (908) 624-6114
*Take my advise -- u cant change there spelling; its a vane exerxize. Hang lose.
Maybe the Bushites think it has something to do with Bill Clinton, which is why they're trying to repeal it.