legal Free Legal Advice

[radz]

Anyone here can help me troubleshoot my internet connection...my other desktop PC di maka connect sa internet kasi.. model nya is Vectra VL 400 W98 SE.

Nakakainis nga eh di ko malaman papano gagawin Help naman po pls.. thanks

[-=extreme=-]

macy menime was commenting on a post made by nox re: lovelybabe's query so you read that wrong, i think you owe menime a kiss

 

I have a query guys, how do I go around installing win2k on an xp machine? the xp machine is disabling the installation of it when I insert the disc The reason I want to install win2k is coz I want to play Mechwarrior 3 which unfortunately wont run on an XP OS and I cant find a patch for it anywhere. So what I need basically is a XP OS patch for Mechwarrior 3 and it's expansion pack MW3-Pirates Moon or instructions on how to install Win2k on an XP machine. help!

It should be win2k first before installing WinXP so XP will install the latest boot loader rather than win2k. its like downward compatibility.

 

maybe you try to run winnt32 from the i386 folder of win2k and will continue to install but cant guarantee if winxp will run again after dual boot because win2k overwrite it with its nt loaders which is not supported by winxp.

[-=extreme=-]

How come it says on the box. Its got WinXP compatible all over it.

There are current issues on the creative audigy drivers for windows xp, you need to get the latest driver to fix it, if you use the cd installer driver then you'll get blue screen/autoreboot issues.

[-=extreme=-]

Anyone here can help me troubleshoot my internet connection...my other desktop PC di maka connect sa internet kasi.. model nya is Vectra VL 400 W98 SE.

Nakakainis nga eh di ko malaman papano gagawin Help naman po pls.. thanks

anong error message ang lumalabas pag dimakaconnect?

nadedetect ba sa device manager yung modem?

have you tried to reinstall and lower the baudrate of the modem?

[vicaner]

It should be win2k first before installing WinXP so XP will install the latest boot loader rather than win2k. its like downward compatibility.

 

maybe you try to run winnt32 from the i386 folder of win2k and will continue to install but cant guarantee if winxp will run again after dual boot because win2k overwrite it with its nt loaders which is not supported by winxp.

extreme dont want to try that, I might end up losing my original OS. been searching the net and got a little info re: compatibility issues. the post tells me to 'launch from All Programs, right click on the Mechwarrior listing, and choose compatibility, win 9*' how do I do that? where's this compatibility wizard thingie? I also read something that said 'make a shortcut to the set up on the cd on your desktop and run the set up in win9* compatibility mode' is this possible and how?

[-=extreme=-]

extreme dont want to try that, I might end up losing my original OS. been searching the net and got a little info re: compatibility issues. the post tells me to 'launch from All Programs, right click on the Mechwarrior listing, and choose compatibility, win 9*' how do I do that? where's this compatibility wizard thingie? I also read something that said 'make a shortcut to the set up on the cd on your desktop and run the set up in win9* compatibility mode' is this possible and how?

Compatibility mode is located here:

 

Click start -> All Programs -> Accessories -> Program Compatibility Wizard

 

just follow through the wizard and will just ask you what program/game you want to run in Win95 /win98 /Winnt 4.0 / windows 2000.

[NoX]

you have to have reached certain number of posts before all your functions will be activated..... activating all functions of almost 40000 members will take too much from the server...

 

i suggest you hit the Preveiw button first and scan your message for any mistakes before you hit Send....

 

this is clearly an off-topic inquiry so for any other questions about MTC Usage, please go to the proper Section... thank you..

<offtopic>since you're here already, macy; can you delete one of my posts above? my connection borked and i thought my first post didn't get through.</offtopic>

 

ok... back to the topic.

 

vicaner. you get this dialog box right?http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/0/0,1311,i=5962,00.gif

 

well here's a mecwarrior 3 patch for windows xp.

try it out first before doing anything else.

wasn't that hard to find at all

[NoX]

To avoid possible driver conflicts.. whichever os u you, clean install is a must.

this really IS the pc for dummies thread.</flamebait>

[bokam]

younghermit,

 

 

The laborer can and should sue Corp A, Corp B, and Corp C. Corp A is solidarily liable to the employee because there exist labor-only contracting.

[Wolf]

Under R.A. 9255, illegitimate children may use the surname of their father if their filiation has been expressly recognized by the father through the record of birth appearing in the civil register, or when an admission in a public document or private handwritten instrument is made by the father.

 

To change the surname of an illegitimate child, he should file a petition for change of name before the Regional Trial Court since it is not a mere correction of typographical errors which can be done adminstratively through the local civil registry.

 

The main expenses in filing a petition will be the cost of publication and attorney's fees.

Do you know of anyone who has actually done this procedure? I'm not sure kasi if it is Rule 103 under Change of Names or Rule 108 under Correction of Entry. I do not know, but I think it should be Rule 103 since there is no issue anyway between the parents and therefore the requirements under rule 103 is not necessary anymore. Besides, Rule 108 is a more expeditious procedure in view of the Cayetano Law on correction of mere clerical errors.

 

Thanks.

[The_Blade]

Thnx for the info wolf & coychee.

[joesix2nine]

joe629,

 

Am really sorry to hear that but not much can be done considering the case has already been decided by the Supreme Court. Even the Motion for Reconsideration was denied.

 

On a side note, minute resolutions by the Supreme Court are considered valid and not unconstitutional.

 

As for legal remedies, was the Indeterminate Sentence Law (PD 968 as amended) applied to their penalty? If so, they could get out a bit sooner than that imposed. They could avail parole also if they are qualified.

 

As for political remedies, pardon comes into mind. But I'm not sure how though and I believe it would be useless coz the term is short.

 

As for the decision you cited, I believe the case was modified by the Supreme Court in view of the Francisco case considering that the latter is a decision rendered En Banc and after the promulgation of the Pedro Santos case which was in 1983.

 

Sec. 4 (3), Article VII of the 1987 Constitution provides that:

x x x

No doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc.

x x x

 

Again, I am sory.

Sure appreciate the information your honors. Could you expound further on PD968? Does one who is qualified have to spend time in jail? In the sentence cited, what is correcion(minimum) and what is mayor(maximum)? Does one really have to finish the minimum jail time before he is entitled to parole? Is there a chance they can do community service instead?

 

Many thanks!

 

BTW the lawyer who tried to extort money from them was himself embroiled in a multi-million extortion case filed by the Sandiganbayan a couple of years ago which I read in the newspaper. Tsk tsk tsk, guess the real criminal was finally caught.

 

And you know what, the couple found out that the case should have never prospered because all they had to do was swear in the legal department office at SEC that they will never do it again. Unfortunately, when they got the information from the kind lawyer at SEC, the case was already filed.

[Lian]

Is there anybody here using a Proxy Server and Nfuse Classic?

 

Im trying to run NFuse Classic/Citrix Server behind a Proxy (MS ISA Server 2000) but can't seem to get through.

 

ISA Server >> Web Server >>Nfuse >> Citrix Server >>Data Server

 

Can you recommend easy-to-configure proxies.ISA's a complicated steaming pile of cow dung! Please help! Thanks!

 

:mtc:

[vicaner]

extreme thanks, was able to look it up already.

 

Nox which search engine did you use? thanks for the link, already got the patch and have tried it. fixed the bugs inherent in using MW3 with an XP OS like flying mechs! had to still do the compatibility thing though coz the patch doesnt fix that.

thanks for all the help

[younghermit]

younghermit,

 

 

The laborer can and should sue Corp A, Corp B, and Corp C. Corp A is solidarily liable to the employee because there exist labor-only contracting.

Thanks for the reply.

I share the same opinion as yours.

 

Our Prof., (a CA Justice) however is of the opinion that The Employees could not go against Corp A. Only against Corp B and C. Our prof's interpretation of Art. 106 was that the said law was only limited to the 2nd level- Employer such that if the relationship expands to the 3rd level as in the hypothethical scenario I've presented, our Prof would make a division up to the 2nd level only.

 

So sad, because if we follow this construction, the Employees could not recover in real life since both Corp B and C have no substantial capital to begin with.