Slashdot Mirror

In my opinion people have the right to believe whatever they want and practice whatever they want. People also have the right to ridicule and mock whomever they want. These rights are not absolute, however. Your right to worship may not impinge on my rights to free speech, or any other rights that an individual has in a free, civilized society. Go to you church/mosque/temple and pray - fine. Getting in my face about accepting Allah/Jesus, etc - you're approaching a line. Threatening others with violence or death because they do not believe in your religion and they mock it? - a line has been crossed and this behavior has no place in any society I want to live in.

Personally I think anyone who believes that some supernatural being that lives in the sky is responsible fo thing that happen is an utter idiot, but that's my opinion - I respect your right to practice your religion, but if you tell me I cannot do something because it is against your religion I'm going to do it, especially if there is an implied threat on your part.

The biggest problem is, how do you argue with someone who "knows" they are right based on blind faith? If a rational person believes them self to be right based on evidence, if you show evidence to the contrary, they will generally adjust their position or at least debate the merits of the argument you have presented. How do you debate the question of, for example, whether or not Muhammed was in fact a pedophile with a group of people that have blind faith in their prophet? You can't without risking that some radical faction will threaten to injure or kill you, and that is unacceptable. Where religious beliefe run afoul of established secular law, the law does, and should, trump the religious beliefs and there should be no exceptions. Unfortunately we see exceptions based on religious beliefs creeping into our laws, the recent healthcare law is the most recent example: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20090806.html.

Short version: do whatever you want, but if in practicing your religion you step on my rights or somehow get you preferential treatment from the government, fuck off.

On the subject, you actually can't copyright a recipe. Probably.

http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/copyright/copyright-realworld/recipe-copyrighting.html

What about submitting under a Creative Commons lic?

On the subject, you actually can't copyright a recipe. Probably.

http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/copyright/copyright-realworld/recipe-copyrighting.html

Your scenario of a big evil company swooping down and taking the lone hero's invention is more psychological than based on real concern. A big soul sucking company would probably hire the guy who invented stuff with a generous enough salary. He is the expert on the thing after all, since he managed to innovate in the field. The guy wouldn't get millions of dollars, but he would make a decent living, a good enough outcome for most people. Noone needs millions of dollars for a comfortable living.

So wrong...

And as far as no one needing millions of dollars for a comfortable living, if a someone invents something worthwhile, like the above saw guard, they deserve to make millions from it a whole lot more than some faceless corporation that steals the guy's invention deserves to. With worthwhile inventions millions will be made; companies don't have some exclusive right to be the only entities making fortunes.

Poor cows. Do you want to feed them with coal you insensitive clod?

No, silly, we'd feed them with grass and/or grain grown with fertilizer made with other fossil fuels. This appears to be just a way to use the energy in the BS (bovine stool) from existing dairies. If we took cows out of the loop entirely, people would have no milk to drink because apparently, soy milk is not milk.

Some guy had a jacked that said "Fuck the draft" on it and walk into a court room. He was arrested. This went to the Supreme Court where it was ruled free speech, since it was most definitely political speech.

I'd assume we'd stick to precedent here.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=403&invol=15

The Supreme Court was pretty clear in the leading case of Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), officially summarized thusly:

"Appellant was convicted of violating that part of Cal. Penal Code 415 which prohibits 'maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person . . . by . . . offensive conduct,' for wearing a jacket bearing the words 'Fuck the Draft' in a corridor of the Los Angeles Courthouse . . . .Held: Absent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions, the State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make the simple public display of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=403&invol=15

I'm offended by people proselytizing their God. Do I have the right to have them ticketed or hauled away, too?

If your city decides, proselytizing is a civil offense as the City of Philadelphia decided, swearing is, your city's police may ticket them...

I repeat my example of the FCC regulating swearing. Their power to do that was challenged, but continues to stand... Philadelpia's action is only more defensible, because FCC is empowered by Federal Congress to whom the First Amendment directly applies, whereas the locales have more freedom in enacting laws, even though we extended the "Congress shall make no law" to lesser governments too a while ago.

It's my personal belief that we have to fix the problems now, discuss them, and introduce population controls that cut down on resource damage until we can determine the nature of the problems we face (without glib one-liners).

We will never do this. Western civilization has basically reached a tipping point, an existential crisis, in which it finds itself unwilling to protect and preserve itself--much less advance--thanks to the adoption of a radical cultural and moral relativism which promotes protecting freedom from being offended and group rights over freedom of expression and individual rights. The legacy of the Third Reich in Europe and of slavery in the New World is this existential crisis, in which the West has vowed not to oppress again--even if it means allowing others to oppress our entire civilization out of existence.

We refuse to even control our own borders and limit immigration, so we could never "introduce population controls that cut down on resource damage"; the result is that established Western democracies like the U.S. and those of Europe are being flooded by immigrants with no experience of true democracy or common effort beyond tribalism, who seek to remake their host countries to serve their particular interests according to their own selfish and undereducated desires. In the old days, immigrants were expected to acculturate and assimilate into their new country and be educated in and adopt its history and norms; today, immigrants expect their new country to acculturate and adjust to them, and to be educated in and adopt their history and norms. The natural result of this is to fracture the host country, and make it immolate its own values, culture, and norms wherever they come in conflict with the immigrants'. The debacle over South Park's recent Muhammad-in-a-bear-suit-who-was-actually-just-Santa episodes, and the liberal furor over Arizona's new sensible immigration enforcement law (while immigrants carrying Mexican flags protest it with violent rhetoric, people are being murdered or raped or kidnapped by illegal immigrants weekly if not daily, and Mexican drug cartels and Federales make armed incursions on our border with no reprisals), are just two recent American manifestations. And the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which had no problem displaying "Piss Christ" over the finger-wagging objections of politicians, has pulled even reverent depictions of Mohammad from its collection of Islamic art.

In Europe it's even worse; when artist Lars Vilks gave a presentation at one of Europe's oldest and most hallowed universities, this was the result:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zjZRLOdMgk

And while most Americans react with sentiments like these:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20100513.html

many European commentators had a less admirable reaction. Stockholm News wrote "By deliberately insulting Muslims in this already-charged climate the artist placed himself in danger. Insulting people's deep-felt religious beliefs is not free speech it's hate speech." While the artist said he'd like to come back to the university and finish his talk, the university says it's not likely he'll be invited back because of the incident--so much for intellectual honesty in academe. The video linked above is the future of the American university as well, though it remains to be seen whether the violent protesters will be shouting "Allahu Akhbar" or "Por La Raza."

Meanwhile, totalitarian collectivist countries like China have been able to "introduce population controls that cut down on resource damage" and protect their own interests; while they're currently big polluters as they're still modernizing and industrializing, they face a future far brighter than the West's. Their population controls will ensure a manageable future population with adequate per-capita resources, and their efforts to maintain the

You wouldn't be charged for "aiding" a criminal (which requires intent), but you might be liable for negligent entrustment:

http://injury.findlaw.com/defective-dangerous-products/defective-dangerous-products-law/firearms(1).html

It's the same thing with a lot of other dangerous things: nuclear materials, poison, explosives, etc.: you need to store them reasonably securely, both to prevent accidental use and to prevent theft.

The statement I replied to said, "The constitution applies to emancipated adults."

That is false. You have first amendment rights no matter how old you are, but that doesn't mean your parents can't spank you if you swear.

What SCOTUS has said, is that a school's responsibility allows it, in some circumstances, to act in loco parentis and can enforce restrictions on it's charges that the government would ordinarily be barred from. That is substantially different from saying that the constitution doesn't apply to minors.

For example New Jersey v. TLO clearly states that minors do have a constitutional expectation of privacy.

The Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies to searches conducted by public school officials and is not limited to searches carried out by law enforcement officers. Nor are school officials exempt from the Amendment's dictates by virtue of the special nature of their authority over schoolchildren.

A minor could, for example, hold up a poster that says "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," on a street corner in downtown, on his own time, and be protected from government or school intervention. He just can't do it at a "school sponsored event" - broadly interpreted.

The concept is that the school isn't acting as the government when it tells a student to sit down and shut up, it's acting as a parent. A parent doesn't have to respect your constitutional rights. The only problem is a line drawing one, i.e. when is the school your daddy, and when is it big brother? Going back to New Jersey v. T.L.O., students have rights, but so do schools. So while a school can search your personal backpack without probable cause it still requires a reasonable suspicion.

I might not be a lawyer, but that doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about - so don't be a dick.

Imagine a public library that offered its main service, access to books, 24/7. And which didn't have limited numbers of copies, library cards, returns, late fees, reshelving work, and vast spaces devoted to paper books. No more problems with books being lost or damaged. And far more efficient cataloging and searching-- no more "two step" of finding something in an index, then finding it again in the stacks. No reason for arrest warrants for overdue books. Just surf to the library's website and download a copy of anything you want. Would be huge savings for everyone. Cities are always strapped for cash, are they not? (I doubt late fees amount to much revenue. May even be negative when the lost patronage is factored in.) Branches could be repurposed into access points, or shut down. Smaller towns could band together to provide more than any of them alone could do. (Ultimately, best to merge into one gigantic library. A complete Library of Congress in every village!) Of course there'd be a few new expenses such as the costs of maintaining huge quantities of digital storage and access devices, but I imagine that'd be more than offset by the savings from being able to reduce staff. There are even further savings. We would have little use for our current 3 part system of bookstores, used bookstores, and libraries. Consolidate them. Except for things like pop-up books, the library could easily expand to handle all sorts of media, which could itself grow in new directions.

I'm supposing you agree this digital public library would be wonderful. Do you see any way we can have this vision and copyright law?

There was a supreme court ruling in 1985 that dealt with installing software on unsupported hardware

The problem here is that, in addition to EULA, there's encryption involved too (Mac OS X relies on a key inside the TPM chip of the target mac).
And although USA did apparently consider EULAs invalid, according to the case you cite, the USA's DMCA law doesn't not allow enough provisions to circumvent that DRM (although in Switzerland, it would have been probably possible).

So you could install Mac OS X legally on any hardware you would like, but there's a lock that prevent you from doing it and this lock can be legally broken in the USA.

Seek another jurisdiction where the local DMCA-clone and EULA validity are both adapted to your situation. Probably at least in eastern europe that should be the case.

I know it is related to support. Jobs is afraid of people having OSX issues and people complaining about OSX. This would go against the belief that OSX is perfect and never crashes or has problems. Simply put in a disclaimer: If you run OSX on non Apple hardware or in a VM you are on your own for support. Or is that against the law?

Breaking a EULA isn't illegal. There was a supreme court ruling in 1985 that dealt with installing software on unsupported hardware, the ruling was that you can't tie software to hardware.

If you can go out and buy OSX in a store, you can install it on your microwave oven if you really want to.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice. (It's obviously a template for a microwave oven OSX installation guide that I'm working on)

I'm a US citizen. I'm not required to carry papers.

IANAL, but I do believe that you are mistaken. If you'll look at the Supreme Court decision in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada you will see that you are required to carry papers. We aren't asking them to do anything that the rest of us aren't required to do.

The problem is that we've made criminals a protected class in America for so long that they have more rights than legal citezens. IMHO, the rights of the Constituion should only apply to citizens. Unfortunately, that's not the way it works anymore.

First of all, the citations: Criminal and Civil. California state law makes it pretty clear that he was under such an obligation.

Second of all, his "attempt to return" the phone, if his story was even true, was entirely half-assed. Calling the trained monkeys that constitute tech support? Rather than anyone who would have had any reason to know that the phone exists? Rather than the employee who lost it, whose name he knew? Rather than the bartender where the phone was lost? Rather than the police, as required as a last resort by California law?

He found a valuable item. He knew it wasn't his. He went ahead and sold it off to the highest bidder, rather than making any credible effort to return it to its owner. He is a thief under any non-juvenile concept of justice.

First of all, the citations: Criminal and Civil. California state law makes it pretty clear that he was under such an obligation.

Second of all, his "attempt to return" the phone, if his story was even true, was entirely half-assed. Calling the trained monkeys that constitute tech support? Rather than anyone who would have had any reason to know that the phone exists? Rather than the employee who lost it, whose name he knew? Rather than the bartender where the phone was lost? Rather than the police, as required as a last resort by California law?

He found a valuable item. He knew it wasn't his. He went ahead and sold it off to the highest bidder, rather than making any credible effort to return it to its owner. He is a thief under any non-juvenile concept of justice.

RTFA- or maybe any of the last dozen or so:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/13/5/s485

One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.

Thats not radical or unique to CA- and its common fucking sense.

he was originally charged with? From what I've found online, he was charged with California statute 502(c) (5), which reads:

(5)Knowingly and without permission disrupts or causes the disruption of computer services or denies or causes the denial of computer services to an authorized user of a computer, computer system, or computer network.

He denied his supervisors direct administrative access to the devices requiring the passwords only he held.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/40/844
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/924

sounds like you blew up a government port-a-potty with someone in it while shooting your gun into the air in celebration.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/40/844
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/924

sounds like you blew up a government port-a-potty with someone in it while shooting your gun into the air in celebration.

(5)Knowingly and without permission disrupts or causes the disruption of computer services or denies or causes the denial of computer services to an authorized user of a computer, computer system, or computer network.

I couldn't find anything that is, definitionally, "computer tampering" through a judicious use of Google.

Read this case: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=5th&navby=docket&no=9820770CV0

Yeah, that case supports exactly what I'm saying. Mink lost because:

Mink is silent concerning where his contacts with the defendants occurred... At the outset, we note that Mink has not met his burden of establishing that the district court had personal jurisdiction over defendant Middlebrook.

They never entered Texas. But wait, they had a website - what about Zippo?

Mink, however, contends that the district court could exercise personal jurisdiction over AAAA because its World Wide Website is accessible by Texas residents.

Oh, look... the court cites Zippo positively:

The Zippo decision categorized Internet use into a spectrum of three areas. At the one end of the spectrum, there are situations where a defendant clearly does business over the Internet by entering into contracts with residents of other states which "involve the knowing and repeated transmission of computer files over the Internet...." Zippo , 952F. Supp. at 1124. In this situation, personal jurisdiction is proper. See id. (citing CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson , 89 F.3d1257 (6th Cir. 1996)).

and then they note that it doesn't apply here:

At the other end of the spectrum, there are situations where a defendant merely establishes a passive website that does nothing more than advertise on the Internet. With passive websites, personal jurisdiction is not appropriate. Seeid. (citing Bensusan Restaurant Corp., v. King , 937 F. Supp. 295(S.D.N.Y. 1996), aff'd , 126 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. 1997) ).
Applying these principles to this case, we conclude that AAAA's website is insufficient to subject it to personaljurisdiction. Essentially, AAAA maintains a website that posts information about its products and services. While the websiteprovides users with a printable mail-in order form, AAAA's toll-free telephone number, a mailing address and an electronic mail("e-mail") address, orders are not taken through AAAA's website. This does not classify the website as anything more than passiveadvertisement which is not grounds for the exercise of personal jurisdiction. See Zippo, 952 F. Supp. at 1124.

Now you:

It doesn't make sense, just like the Zippo case doesn't make sense.

The Zippo sliding scale is junk, and you need to realize that.

Tell that to the court you cited to "support" your argument.

Oh, please. You don't see a distinction between "your floppy discs ended up in our state" and "you receive orders from residents of our state and ship product to those residents"?

Not really, no. And you don't see a difference between this MA law and business not having to collect sales tax for out of state residences?

I have, repeatedly. Zippo. International Shoe. Maritz. Cybersell.

And I have repeatedly explained why this doesn't apply. Its not an example, and it doesn't even apply expect in Western PA.

[Citation needed]

Oh, I guess that's why when I purchase from newegg they collect sales tax. Oh wait, they don't. Or when I buy from a catalog with no physical presense in my state, they collect sales tax. Oh wait, again, they don't.

One of the things that might be throwing you off is that you keep going to the dormant commerce clause. Specific personal jurisdiction is where you want to look first - the state court needs personal jurisdiction in order to even reach the question of dormant commerce clause.

The main thing throwing you off is that the case you keep refering to 1) was never decided at a national level, which is why different federal courts have had differing opinions, and 2) believe that the courts have it right when treating internet orders differently from mail order. Read this case: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=5th&navby=docket&no=9820770CV0

And explain how having a phone number to place orders, or a mail order form to place orders is in any real way different from allowing the website to take orders? It doesn't make sense, just like the Zippo case doesn't make sense.

The Zippo sliding scale is junk, and you need to realize that. Other courts have dismissed the sliding scale, and for good reason: it doesn't make sense to treat the internet differently than phone or mail order.

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-ca8/case_no-09-2914/case_id-0/

Specifically, this appears to be California Penal Code, section 485:

One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.

With the disclaimer that it's been a few years since I took torts and Con law (so take this with a grain of salt), sovereign immunity doesn't protect state actors from violations of civil rights. In fact, 42 USC 1983 specifically creates a federal cause of action for violation of federal constitutional and statutory rights. And it's not limited to just federal actors. It's "any person" who "under color of [authority]" deprives a person of their federal civil rights. If I remember correctly, the theory behind this statute is that the federal government can waive the states' sovereign immunity under the auspices of the 14th Amendment, since it came after the 11th Amendment, which solidified the states' sovereign immunity. So assuming everything is as it's stated in the summary, Rachner would have a federal cause of action against the police department.

2080.1. (a) If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the property, the person saving or finding the property shall, if the property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more, within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police department of the city or city and county, if found therein, or to the sheriff's department of the county if found outside of city limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating when and where he or she found or saved the property, particularly describing it.

I know what Gizmodo "says" happened, I read their article. I also know that the California law is very clear on this issue, and that "selling the found property to Gizmodo" is not a reasonable second step under that law.

Furthermore, California Penal Code, section 485 also defines theft as such:

One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.

So there's a pretty strong argument that the finder is also guilty of theft.

Sure, the engineer screwed up, but legal or not, it ain't right to keep the phone.

"Right" is subjective, but I'd agree that giving it back is the decent thing to do. It still isn't theft.

Actually, according to CA law, it is http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/13/5/s485 :

One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.

FYI:

CAL. PEN. CODE 485 : California Code - Section 485

One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.

Does that look good for Gizmodo?

California Code - Article 1: Lost Money and Goods [2080. - 2080.10.]:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/CIV/5/d3/4/6/4/1

According to Californian law you can't just keep money or goods you find, you must return it to the owner in cases where the owner is known or hand it in to the police in cases where the owner is unknown. In the case of unknown ownership, if after 90 days the police have been unable to locate the owner, the police will publish a notice in a newspaper in general circulation. If the owner is still undetermined seven days after publication of the notice, the money or goods are turned over to the finder.

So at this point whoever found the phone initially and Gizmodo are effectively engaged in theft.

Let's see. His treatment of prisoners has been ruled unconstitutional on multiple occasions. He has raided an office of his own county without a warrant of any kind in order to seize emails that are to be used against him in court. His destruction of records has netted him a contempt sanction, and the FBI is investigating him for civil rights violations, intimidation of witnesses, etc.

These aren't idle accusations. They're at least serious enough to get the justice department involved. Even judges aren't immune from this mans corruption.

Being in the intersection when your light turns red is illegal in all (states).

You're mistaken about that.
Many states only require you cross the white line before the light turns red.

SCOTUS can justify overturning the DC handgun ban without citing precedence or any case law

Really?

I don't give two shits whether you ban firearms, I don't and never will own any, but the the only body not providing citations is yours.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290&friend=usatoday

They cite:

- The Constitution of the United States

They reference previous case law as not counter indicating:

- United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553
- Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264-265
- United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174

The held points:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.

This issue is cut and dry. Our right to keep and bear arms is protected by the 2nd Amendment to the constitution. There are limits to this right, but you can't just ban handguns cause you think they are dangerous. Sorry. If you don't like it, you need enough votes to amend the constitution.

citation(s) needed. I've seen lots of cases. Most were dealing with prayer over the PA system or teachers or students leading prayers at sporting events and such. I've seen no bans on praying on your own. In fact there have been cases upholding the "moment of silence" in schools.

And of course we all know that if you haven't seen it, it doesn't exist. I'm wondering if your google finger is broke. Here is reference to one, here is another, and I won't bother linking to the others but I'll post the link to the same sites if your interested.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19256
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19517
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=496&invol=226
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/lamb_v_cent.html
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/rose_v_rege.html
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/boar_v_merg.html
http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/widm_v_vinc.html

And those are just some that were compiled at a couple site showing up in the first few results of the google search. And yes, a couple of those were dealing with prayer over the PA system in which the court rules it was allowed. At least two of the cases cited refereed to the use or the PA system at either football games or graduation ceremonies and echoed the same sentiments on when it's controlled by the school or student.

That's how they've tried to sell it, but it clearly says that this nation is under God (proper noun). If that doesn't profess a belief, not just in a god, but in a specific God, then you're going to need some serious evidence to back up your explanation of what it actually means. The court's decision was essentially an appeal to tradition and a refusal to consider the matter. The addition of the phrase was intended originally to distance our country from those godless commies in Russia.

So if I say God with the capitol G as a proper noun, I'm automatically preaching or endorsing a religion? I guess you were preaching too when you wrote your statement pointing that out. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? And no, that's not a strawman argument, it's the basis of your argument completely and undistorted outside of the subject being stated.

As I mentioned earlier which doesn't have the lunacy of your contention, the phrase under God in the pledge is not a prayer or religion,"Thus, the pledge is an endorsement of our form of government, not of religion or any particular sect." as the courts said.

You are correct as I have already noted, the phrase was intended to distance ourselves from those godless commies. But what you are not seeing here is that our system of leadership and government (until relativity recently anyways) answered to a higher power. Be it the people, a god, or patriotism and the constitution in which all it's power is derived from the consent of the people. On the contrast, the godless commies decreed the state and their personal power to be the ultimate in much the same ways as the Roman emperors and the pharaohs of Egypt eventually declared themselves a god. There was no higher power then themselves to which the US was st

then what's the problem with it?

"Why, Even If You Have Nothing To Hide, Government Surveillance Threatens Your Freedom:
The Case Against Expanding Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Powers".
'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy.
If you have nothing to hide, you have everything to fear.

Falcon

a) This wasn't a frivolous lawsuit because actual injury occurred. This wasn't patent trolling. It was either McDonalds fault or her fault (or both), but someone got hurt, there were actual hospital bills to pay and an actual reason to bring the case (based on McDonalds' past negligence).

What "past negligence"? Serving a hot beverage... hot? Just like everyone else?

Check it out- the National Coffee Association (and who better knows coffee??) recommends 180-185 degrees, exactly the temp McDonalds had it at.

Home coffee makers make/hold coffee that temp, too. See the Bunn.com site. Go on, open it in another tab, I'll wait. Got it open? Then click '@ home', then 'Brew Great Coffee', then 'Brewing Do's and Don'ts.' Now, read the part where it says "...using a brewer that keeps water at 200 Fahrenheit (the ideal temperature)..." and the part where is says "Don't" "Re-heat for serving any coffee with a temperature below 175 F "?

Hell, here's a lawsuit against Bunn: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=7th&navby=docket&no=974131
"Using the legal system to shift the costs of this injury to someone else may be attractive to the McMahons, but it would have bad consequences for coffee fanciers who like their beverage hot."

And, finally, the American National Standards Institute Standard 5.2.1 provides:
  "On completion of the brewing cycle and within a 2 minute interval, the beverage temperature in the dispensing vessel of the coffee maker while stirring should be between the limits of 170? F and 205? F (77? C and 96? C)."

So, don't even try saying that McDonald was "negligent" by serving coffee hot.

The system worked, and McDonalds changed its coffee temperature.

BZZZZTTTTT!!!! Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
"McDonald's policy today is to serve coffee between 80–90 C (176–194 F), relying on more sternly-worded warnings to avoid future liability..."

Check the wiki article for cite(s).

It's sort of like patent trolling. The company has no legitimate business activity except to act as an entity that can be "damaged" such that they can sue for damages. Remember that guy who got a bad paint job on his BMW and sued and won a 2 million dollar judgment? It's a bit like these companies are hunting around for cars with bad paint jobs and buying them for double the retail value, not because they need to drive somewhere, but just so they can get the rights to sue for the "damage".

After much research I think I agree with you on the speech part.

Specifically it appears that any "legislative act" taken by a congressmen or anything/one under their direction (for that legislative act) would be protected (specifically this includes their staff). Also it appears that this includes an immunity from action by congress (criminal or civil but not procedural).

Also it turns out that the "arrest" reference was only to Civil arrests and not criminal arrests (civil arrests don't happen any more).

Here are the two most informative links:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/21.html

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=John_R._Sand_and_Gravel_v._US

No kidding- it's as if the parent poster ate a big bowl of Talking Points, particularly given the shot at Edwards. This summary suggests he won a mere $175M in 20 years of practice- and if you think a competent lawyer can't find $20M/year of actual egregious damages caused by clear negligence, you're not living in the same country the rest of us are. (Toyota knew about problems for years and did nothing about it? THOSE DAMN TRIAL LAWYERS!)
 
That's to say nothing of the contention that cerebral palsy is apparently never caused by birth injury. I'd cite some medical literature, but it's easier to just point out that Wikipedia agrees with me.

Did you not detect my note of sarcasm? However, the controlling case seems to be SPARF v. U S, 156 U.S. 51 (1895), which notes

We must hold firmly to the doctrine that in the courts of the United States it is the duty of juries in criminal cases to take the law from the court, and apply that law to the facts as they find them to be from the evidence. Upon the court rests the responsibility of declaring the law; upon the jury, the responsibility of applying the law so declared to the facts as they, upon their conscience, believe them to be.

Try to keep a low profile during voire dire-- if you are outspoken and forthright, you won't get in, and if you lie, a vengeful prosecutor or a jealous judge might just get you for perjury or contempt.

The jury held that the law required the company to do so.

The jury found, that saws without such devices are defective. I agree, that this is nonsense, but most people cheered, when an automaker was crucified for not making their gas tank safer. GM did not break any law, but were found responsible for the deaths anyway.

The saws weren't defective before the device was invented, but they are now — according to the jury...

There is a much worse example of this problem, one that actually involves the (Executive) Government — I am talking about building codes, which get tightened every year. An unelected government official can force you to rebuild your house "to code" whenever you ask them for a building permit. But we don't read about that outrage in newspapers...

The article says its damages, presumably payable to the person spammed by the spamming company. Given that the CA law also says its a misdemeanor, that would imply that individuals can be fined or jailed. Cali might be able to start prosecuting these guys and generating some revenue. Or maybe they'll stick with the easier to prove and more lucrative dwi cases.

From 17529.5. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/BPC/1/d7/3/1/1.8/s17529.5
(a)It is unlawful for any person or entity to advertise in a commercial e-mail advertisement either sent from California or sent to a California electronic mail address under any of the following circumstances:

(1)The e-mail advertisement contains or is accompanied by a third-party's domain name without the permission of the third party.

(2)The e-mail advertisement contains or is accompanied by falsified, misrepresented, or forged header information. This paragraph does not apply to truthful information used by a third party who has been lawfully authorized by the advertiser to use that information.

(3)The e-mail advertisement has a subject line that a person knows would be likely to mislead a recipient, acting reasonably under the circumstances, about a material fact regarding the contents or subject matter of the message.

(b)(1)(A)In addition to any other remedies provided by any other provision of law, the following may bring an action against a person or entity that violates any provision of this section:

(i)The Attorney General.

(ii)An electronic mail service provider.

(iii)A recipient of an unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisement, as defined in Section 17529.1.

(B)A person or entity bringing an action pursuant to subparagraph (A) may recover either or both of the following:

(i)Actual damages.

(ii)Liquidated damages of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisement transmitted in violation of this section, up to one million dollars ($1,000,000) per incident.

(C)The recipient, an electronic mail service provider, or the Attorney General, if the prevailing plaintiff, may also recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

(D)However, there shall not be a cause of action under this section against an electronic mail service provider that is only involved in the routine transmission of the e-mail advertisement over its computer network.

(2)If the court finds that the defendant established and implemented, with due care, practices and procedures reasonably designed to effectively prevent unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisements that are in violation of this section, the court shall reduce the liquidated damages recoverable under paragraph (1) to a maximum of one hundred dollars ($100) for each unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisement, or a maximum of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) per incident.

(3)(A)A person who has brought an action against a party under this section shall not bring an action against that party under Section 17529.8 or 17538.45 for the same commercial e-mail advertisement, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 17529.1.

(B)A person who has brought an action against a party under Section 17529.8 or 17538.45 shall not bring an action against that party under this section for the same commercial e-mail advertisement, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 17529.1.

(c)A violation of this section is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), imprisonment in a county jail for not more than six months, or both that fine and imprisonment.

>>Actually efficiency/weatherizing has the fastest payback between doing nothing, installing alternative/renewable energy, and efficiency/weatherizing.

If it's a good deal, then people will do it themselves, and we don't need to drop billions into Obama's campaign donors pockets.

It is a good deal but it requires money up front, and in case you haven't heard we're in a recession where millions of people have lost their jobs. No matter how much money something can save it's irresponsible to spend money you don't have. And as I have said all along, including in this post of mine you replied to, I'd get rid of all subsidies. But since it's being done I hope it has the desired effect and creates well paying jobs.

>>Banning unions, which runs afoul of the First Amendment's freedom to assemble, protest, and seek redress, will not improve education.

You'd be surprised, actually.

Yea, let's see how well it has worked. You say North Carolina made teachers unions illegal, let's see how North Carolina's schools are... According to Local School Directory North Carolina ranks below the national average. It has improved since No Child Left Behind but it's still bad, so not allowing teachers unions there doesn't appear to have helped.

Now do you have facts to share that supports your position that banning unions and not allowing competition makes schools better, or do you only have rhetoric? Oh, wait a minute... maybe you meant I'd be surprised that courts have ruled banning unions isn't unconstitutional. I would not be surprised at all. After all even the US Supreme Court has made rulings I and others consider unconstitutional. For instance the USSC ruled the federal government had the authority to make medical marijuana illegal even though voters in California voted to make it legal. In the Gonzales v. Raich. case the court had to bend over backwards to rule that the interstate commerce clause gave the feds the power to block states' rights. Of the nine members of the court 5 ruled the feds have the power and the other 4 ruled it does not.

Falcon

That's very detailed information. Where are you getting this from? I see that ETCS issues are mentioned in a lawsuit against Toyota, but you're specifying that the unintended acceleration in Toyota's may be the result of a simple short across the 2 APP sensors? That's pretty big news, and if so, it's a hardware issue with a potential software workaround, as you've detailed above.

Is this something you've determined personally, or do you have a source link for it?

The postal service and the powers related are is specifically authorized by the U.S. constitution. If it troubles you so much, maybe you should contact your local representative and ask them about amending it.

You made a point. It is factually incorrect. Maintaining that point is a lie.

"What about, essentially, ignoring Supreme Court rulings that would force them to stop deliving junk mail to unwilling recipients?"

What about it? Got any proof that they are?

Your statement indicates you don't care to what degree the post office is lawless and aided by the government. Research form 1500, its dismissal by local postmasters, the total lack of accountability (aka the postmaster's liability) upon ignoring a properly served form. The proof: "We therefore categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another. If this prohibition operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no one has a right to press even 'good' ideas on an unwilling recipient". If you know anything about the form, it does not implement the court action (e.g., whole classes - specifically junk unaddressed - is exempt) and only applies when you are being specifically addressed. The Wiki notes the form fails even in its language to match the case law.

toadlife (301863), is there any reason not to dismiss you as a fucking moron? People who can't revise their opinion in the face of contrary evidence, and who offer no evidence to counter, are fucking imbeciles.

The postal service and the powers related are is specifically authorized by the U.S. constitution. If it troubles you so much, maybe you should contact your local representative and ask them about amending it.

You made a point. It is factually incorrect. Maintaining that point is a lie.

"What about, essentially, ignoring Supreme Court rulings that would force them to stop deliving junk mail to unwilling recipients?

What about it? Got any proof that they are?

Your statement indicates you don't care to what degree the post office is lawless and aided by the government. Research form 1500, its dismissal by local postmasters, the total lack of accountability (aka the postmaster's liability) upon ignoring a properly served form. The proof: "We therefore categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another. If this prohibition operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no one has a right to press even 'good' ideas on an unwilling recipient". If you know anything about the form, it does not implement the court action (e.g., whole classes - specifically junk unaddressed - is exempt) and only applies when you are being specifically addressed. The Wiki notes the form fails even in its language to match the case law.

toadlife (301863), is there any reason not to dismiss you as a fucking moron?

Whoa! Citation please!

Fair enough request. here you go.

One quote in particular stands out to me... "Participation in the Olympic Games is voluntary. Thus, nations and individuals who participate in the Olympic Games submit themselves to the rules and regulations established by the IOC, and to subsequent sanctions for violating these rules. The IOC alone cannot compel governmental compliance, however, the Olympic Charter exemplifies current international practice and has the effect of customary international law. Therefore, the authoritative force of the rules and regulations of the Olympic Charter are recognized by state and international law.

Interestingly, I can't find substantiation of my claim that they have an international trademark by treaty, as with the IRC. So I'll have to take my spankings on that point, though I consider the above somewhat more scary.


but it really is only theory unless the Supreme Court has tried to overturn part of a treaty, and was denied.

As I said, IANAL. However, the best I can find on this subject comes from De Geofroy vs Riggs, 1890, which says "The treaty power, as expressed in the constitution, is in terms unlimited, except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government" - Which I take to mean that unless they blatantly violate the constitution, treaties win.

Funny but 1) Daniel Webster is long dead and not under copyright (the author has taken material from living people whose books are still available for sale) 2) Webster compiled information about how words were used. He'd have no copyright of the words. It isn't actually obviously clear if even his dictionary would have been copyrightable under modern copyright laws. See for example Feist v. Rural Telephone - (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications_v._Rural_Telephone_Service or for those who want the actual case http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=499&invol=340 which says essentially that copyrights can't apply simply to compilations of existing information but must have some originality to them. (The original case in question dealt with whether or not a phone directory was copyrightable). This is actually an area where modern copyrights might actually be too lenient about what is copyrighted (Seriously. Really. Stop laughing. Stop. Please. I mean it.) And in fact some countries other than the US use a test that measures effort not originality. For a dictionary, the concise definitions might be copyrightable. Maybe. But that's it.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States, between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects

Basically, it's saying the federal law and judicial power (governed by the constitution) is enforceable in those settings.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/

By the way, a distribution requires
1.dissemination of copies to the public
2. by sale or other transfer of ownership, or a rental, lease or lending.

17 USC 106(3). The RIAA has never proved, and probably could never prove, a distribution in any of these end user cases.