(In light of Apple’s recent issues with Foxconn, I thought I’d post this gem from the past.)
Levi Strauss & Co. and Reebok Corp. are among the first three companies signing on to a new campaign created by the International Labor Rights Fund and other groups to promote workers’ rights in Chinese factories.
The companies agreed to implement 10 business practices regarding labor in these factories. Toymaker Mattel has also agreed to participate.
A university lawsuit against Internet-based sellers of term papers once again raises a question that is cropping up across the net: Are World Wide Web-based businesses subject to the laws of every country, state and town where surfers connect?
“The courts are wrestling with this jurisdictional issue,” said Stuart Smith, a partner at Gordon & Glickson, a law firm in Chicago. “Several cases have come down on opposite sides.”
Boston University last week in federal court sued eight sites that provide the term papers, charging them with violating a law banning the sale of such papers in Massachusetts as well as federal antifraud statutes.
“We will take whatever steps are necessary to preserve the integrity of the academic process,” university President Jon Westling said in a statement announcing the suit.
The university seeks an injunction against the companies, all located outside Massachusetts, and punitive damages.
Intellectual property (IP) provider Sand Microelectronics will target a market which some are referring to as “the only sure thing,” when it introduces a pair of synthesizable IEEE-1394 soft cores here at the IP’98 conference, a move that also expands the company’s growing list of PC peripheral bus macros.
Sand is unveiling two soft IEEE-1394 cores including the 1394DC device controller core and the 1394 CPHY digital cable-PHY core. In addition, the company is rolling out a design tool kit, dubbed the Sand Designer Advantage kit, that consists of an IEEE-1394 simulation mode, synthesizable cores and design aids. Babu Chilukuri, VP of business development at Sand, said the company is targeting its 1394 IP cores toward the multimedia, disk drive and PC audio markets. Utilizing 1394 bus cores will be another way for PC makers to differentiate their products from one another.
The men who wrote the U.S. Constitution dreaded an imperial President, and they feared an unrestrained Congress. Either could destroy the new democratic Republic. So they established an ingenious system of checks and balances to prevent either branch from encroaching too far on the prerogatives of the other. But the Founders considered the judiciary to be inherently the weakest branch of government. They never contemplated what has happened –a willful judiciary that is fencing voters and their elected representatives out of the decision-making process.
Abuse of power by the Supreme Court has long been a serious concern. But the stakes are magnified by the re-election of President Bill Clinton. Mr. Clinton is likely to have the opportunity to nominate one or more members of the High Court. Presumably, he will be inclined to appoint activist Justices whose presence on the Court would aggravate an already untenable situation.
Fortunately, however, members of the U.S. Senate still can prevent our worst fears from being realized. Senators have the right to deny confirmation of activist nominees to the Supreme Court and, for that matter, other courts. Senators should decide that, henceforth, judicial nominees will be required to pledge publicly that they will interpret the Constitution and statutes in accordance with the original intent of the documents and their authors. As the
The Supreme Court’s message: Put your pokey in writing, communicate it to every employee, and follow up on complaints.
The Supreme Court issued two sexual-harassment rulings last summer that should both worry and hearten employers.
On the downside, the court ruled that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, companies can be held liable for the illegal harassing behavior of supervisors even when top managers had no idea that it was going on and were not negligent in any way. This was the strongest statement yet of employers’ liability for supervisors’ actions.
The first thing that you need to do if you are in the progress of RAID 10 recovery is to determine if the problem is software or a hardware failure. After determining the costs, you can take the next step further and necessary to resolve your issue. The hardware failure is cost by damage in the physical components of a computer such as the motherboard or the CPU while a software failure has something to do with the programming side. The latter is more complex and can only be handled by the experts. If you are not really one the “experts”, don’t even try to fix the RAID 10 array, especially if a hard disk has failed.
Recovering RAID 10 is not simple at all in physical hard disk crash situations. If a single hard disk in the RAID 10 array has failed, a replacements is readily available at the nearest computer store; this means that you have everything under control. You can choose to delay or finish the task immediately. Things are a lot different if the problem is the RAID controller software. This is the time when you need to ask the experts advised as they will decide on how to proceed with the RAID array recovery. You can search the internet for available service providers or you can choose to visit the nearest service center within your area. Again, prices vary so make sure that you are ready to pay for the value of your most-prized possession – your data.
Using RAID 10 – Its Importance As An Array Type
Although many users prefer using RAID 10 as it is more economical and functional, there will be instances wherein the RAID 10 array may fail. Disk failure is the most common reason followed by damaged files, virus attack, corrupted data and many others. Whatever the reason is, what you need to do is to perform drive restoration to retrieve the lost data.
In a way very similar to the way the US views the Civil Rights period in the 60s, the movement for aboriginal rights has been to Australia in the 1980’s and 90’s. Some historical background is in order. Ever since Governor Phillip landed at Sidney Cove in 1788 and claimed what is now known as the eastern state of Queensland for the British Crown, Australia’s Aborigines have been a dispossessed people in their own land. Unlike Native Americans, Aborigines have no treaties to go on; no Crown Government ever respected them enough to make one with them. They were invisible non-persons, legal “nobodies.” As recently as 1971, Sir Richard Blackburn, a Supreme Court judge of the Northern Territory where mining and ranching interests have always dominated, could nullify all aboriginal claims to land title by serenely asserting that, prior to the colonial period, Australia was a terra nullius – “a land of nobody.”
The Blackburn decision, however, turned out to be the last gasp of an old, unquestioned order that was already giving way under the pressure of an emergent Green party and new activism on the part of indigenous groups. In 1975 the Australian Federal Parliament passed a strong anti-racial discrimination act. By 1987 polls