Where was your outrage then?

Hypocrite.

LK

I've wanted a Spaceballs: The Flame Thrower since I was a kid. Mel Brooks was right, the kids love this one.

I like how also it has nothing to do with the movie, except that it's shown in the movie as something available as a movie tie-in. Reminds me of that Spock helmet.

That is silly. A falling bullet has a much lower speed than one that was just shot. I've been hit by shotgun pellets at the end of their range, it was like having gravel slung at you.

A returning bullet CAN hit someone, and possibly injure them if everything is lined up right, or there is a very low angle of fire, but they have a small fraction of the energy they had in the first km after being fired.

Then it needs to be part of the qualifying exam, not external to that. If it's part of the exam, then it's obviously not going to be secret from the pilot examiners.

(Actually, I thought this was how it is already, at least in the U.S.)

I had to go through jury selection a few months back for a capital case, going through three or four rounds of appearances and interviews. Part of what struck me about the experience is how incredibly poor the paperwork was. They gave us number cards when there were 250+ people to go through in my group, they were all handwritten even though the numbers corresponded with the computer-generated numbers we were assigned when the original mailing for service was sent. Forms and questionnaires looked like they were generated in Clarisworks by first-time users in elementary school. Nothing had letterhead, nothing had any sort of official feel.

Your story about no letterhead and using fax machines is totally believable to me, and I'm amazed that it isn't abused more often.

Why must we keep electing people who are so fucking stupid?

This is the result that democracy produces. *SO* many people want to deny it despite all available supporting data.

Maybe because admitting it would demand some sort of corrective action.

In many states, yes. It would be a tort. Intentional interference with a contractual relation. However, in the states that recognize this claim, the competitor would generally have to know about the non-compete. Additionally, Amazon would have to prove harm, which might be hard to do in the case of this type of worker.

I doubt it. There is no legal agreement between the new employer and Amazon in this context.

Where I live no-competes are not enforceable, so here it doesn't matter. Even skilled technical workers that make real product-design contributions can change employers without penalty. One can go from Intel to Motorola to Honeywell and work in all of their IC packaging divisions without any penalty.

This is true, but it's also not universally a given either.

Free-markets would probably limit utilities to higher-density urban areas only. Regulation is supposed to force companies to do business that is not necessarily profitable in a small number of cases in order to reap the reward of the easy profitable business in urban areas.

What needs to happen here is enforcement against the monopoly that they have to provide service.

I don't think that the vast majority of warehouse workers are even going to consider that clause's existence when the leave Amazon for other work.

There are lots of clauses placed into contracts that are not legally binding under current law. Some of those clauses are put in because the parties drafting the contract aren't necessarily aware that they're not legal, and other clauses are there so that if the law is changed, the clause might be able to come into effect.

An example, in my state, a real estate lender cannot seek compensation from the mortgagee-seller if a short-sale does not bring as much revenue as the mortgagee owes. Despite this, most short-sale contracts state that the bank may go after the seller for the seven years that debts may be collected in. Other states do not have laws preventing this, so if the seller moves out-of-state the bank might try to enforce against them, or if the laws in the state change then the bank may attempt to enforce.

As for the nature of illegal conditions in a contract, that's why contracts usually have clauses in them that state that if any part of the contract is deemed unenforceable, the rest of the contract remains in-effect.

Yep. Last time I checked non-competes were not really allowed in my state either, and my guess is that an attempt at enforcing one against a lowly hourly laborer would be laughed out of court.

It's still money though. You either pay your own staff or you pay someone else to pay their staff.