Slashdot Mirror

law in the US does not recognize a contract with someone under the age of majority... usually 18
https://law.freeadvice.com/gen...

I note your citation itself cites nothing, which makes it... worthless. But that's no surprise, because free legal advice is worth every penny spent on it.

The parents signed up for the loans, not the children. Again, law in the US does not recognize a contract with someone under the age of majority... usually 18
https://law.freeadvice.com/gen...

The difference between assault and battery. Assault is the real threat of harm, battery is the actual physical act of harm. So sexual assault is the threat of sexual battery; sexual battery is when the criminal finishes up and says you should put some ice on that...

Interesting. I've always been told that minors can't have credit cards or other types of loans because they can't consent to contracts. Apparently there is some other stuff in there. Another cite.

Some of these are suggesting that the contract is valid until and unless the minor moves to void the contract before the age of majority--that is: the contract continues unless, by age 18, you step up and say, "Nope I changed my mind bro." Apparently you can't be bound.

So yeah, what you said seems about right: many contracts are voidable just by being a minor, but they can enter into them. ... weird. No wonder nobody wants to sign with minors.

We all know this — the "free speech" Amendment only applies to government. You must not prosecuted for calling Trump "traitor" or a policemen — "an asshole".

Though the work to abolish the Amendment is in progress, it may take a while for us to become "more like Europe".

So, in order to control, what people say — and what politics they support — the statists have invented a new trick. Instead of pursuing the individuals, they would go after employers. See, the First Amendment may protect James Damore's speech, but it does not protect Google from charges of "creating hostile work-environment".

And just what constitutes such an environment? Whatever the government says it does (somehow "gender identity" is on the list already, for example)... Sure, sure, to actually win in court, the prosecutors/lawyers need to persuade a judge and the jury. But the process is daunting and very costly — and whereas the employer has to pay their own expenses, the "attackers" are paid by the taxpayers.

It is to protect themselves from such nonsense, that employers establish these "internal policies" and set up positions like "Vice President of Diversity" in the first place. These people sincerely believe in the justice of their causes, doing the government's job for it...

By inventing "protected categories" the government gets to decide, what Americans aren't allowed to say. At least, at work — where we spend about half of our waking time. And then come Social Justice Warriors, who would gleefully pursue you even for convictions privately held...

First Amendment? Yes, sure — you still have it, but best talk in your shower, where no one can hear it and get offended.

Found the DeVry JD.

http://business-law.freeadvice...

A minor may *disaffirm*, or void, most contracts ...

No.

A person must be 18 years or older to enter into a written, implied, or verbal contract.

In all states, the age requirement to sign a contract is 18 years of age. A child under the age of 18 is considered a minor and is unable to sign a contract unless it is for essential items. Essential items include medicines, food, and medical services. Otherwise, the minor child must have a parent or guardian consent to the contract in order for it to be legally binding.

I'm gonna throw in a wrench.

There's a difference between Assault and Battery. Assault is the threat, Battery is the action. If I threaten to harm you, that's assault. I hit you with a golf club, that's battery. (disclaimer: I'm not a legal professional).

There's a subtlety to battery though, it has to be non-consensual. This guy likely has told people that his machine will poke you with a needle in your fingertip, at a random time, and his test subjects must have consented. Due to the consent, its not battery, regardless of where the blame lies (robot or creator). Similarly, running into a busy freeway and getting killed by a semi is suicide, not vehicular manslaughter (or homicide), as long as the driver was not driving recklessly.

So, if I know that this machine is designed with the sole purpose of poking me with a needle and I sit down to it and put my hand in the strike zone, it's my own damned fault for doing it. The machine and its creator can't be responsible for my decision to do so.

"Assault involves intent to harm."

Assault doesn't necessarily involve any contact at all. You are thinking of assault and battery. There is such a thing as verbal assault, where no physical contact or harm ensues. See also, and then just accept that you don't know about the law and move on with your life..

Being arrested requires that charges be filed.

Incorrect. You're 'detained' of the officer stops you for any reason. You're 'under arrest' if you don't feel free to leave, if the police transport you anywhere, or uses force to prevent you from leaving. The officer requires 'reasonable suspicion' to detain you, and requires 'probable cause' to arrest you, but it DOES NOT need to lead to charges. The officer can reasonably believe you were commiting a crime, then turn out to be wrong, or have new evidence come to light without it having been false arrest.

Your twenty minutes is plucked out of the air and meaningless.

Actually, it's a rule of thumb applied by the SCOTUS. Google it a bit and you'll find all sorts of case law, opinions, and the like.

Otherwise, google 'detention versus arrest' and you'll find all sorts of legal jurisprudence about it. Like this. Or this. Or even this.

TLDR: You can be 'detained' on suspicion. If you're not free to go, if the officer moves you, or if the officer starts calling in backup, drug sniffing dogs, and the like, you're under arrest. If he develops 'probable cause' to believe you've committed a crime, he can arrest you.

No. If you aren't free to leave, you're under arrest.

http://criminal-law.freeadvice...

Were that the case then the woman would not have custody of the child.

Again it all comes down to the welfare of the child. If the child has never seen his father, then ripping the child out of the home of its mother would not be in the best interest of the child. You can look at a court case, or talk to a lawyer and you'll see that in this case the father would almost certainly be held liable for support, regardless of whether or not he was involved in the life of the child. And even if the father is involved, he would not likely be granted sole custody just because the mother lost her job, or was otherwise on state assistance. That would just be ridiculous in cases where the mother was, for instance, a stay at home mom prior to a divorce or separation.

There is no non-felonious murder or car theft.

Wrong, at least for car theft in Texas:

In Texas, the value of the property will generally control the level of the offense. The higher the value of the vehicle, the higher the range of punishment for the vehicle theft.

An inexpensive vehicle theft, (under $1500), is punished as a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in county jail.

http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/white_collar_crimes/vehicle-theft.htm

Nope. The devil is in the details as to the nature of the law being violated.

The difference between a civil offense and a criminal offense are usually defined by the nature of the offense and the punishment assessed. Civil offenses involve violations of administrative matters.

Read more: http://criminal-law.freeadvice...

It's more likely with private individuals.

For example:
http://forum.freeadvice.com/au...

I was looking for a used car, found one one craigslist. Got a cashiers check to pay for it received the car and title payed with the check. Tried to get a temporary tag from the dmv but the car was never registered to the guy i got it from. The title he had was still from where he bought it from someone else. So needless to say i couldn't get the tag. I put a stop payment on the check and just want out of the deal. Now he won't take the keys and title back. What are my options? Am i just out of luck?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/1012508...

---

But basically, we have different priorities. You feel this isn't stressful. I would find having to validate the title to be stressful.

I know some people say warranties don't make sense. I buy them on my large purchases and have a repair warranty on my house. Insurance *never* makes sense on an individual basis unless you "lose" the gamble.

I've had good luck with warranties. Most have been close to break-even. One was ridiculously profitable for me. So I may like them more than some people.

That is not my understanding of it. From what I know children and non owners can consent to a search of you house if your not there. http://criminal-law.freeadvice... The issue with this case is that he did non consent, they removed him from the house, and then got consent from another resident. Your ex-husband example would only apply if you did not give him a key and/or had a restraining order against him. It is a bad idea to co-own property or live with someone who would rat you out to the police.

Just because you CAN take over the vehicle doesn't mean you will. The law should be reserved for those that actually have taken control of the vehicle.

It gets worse, maybe than you even think..... If you are sleeping in the driver's seat in the parking lot of a store visible from the public street; or on the side of the highway, with your car shut off, and keys in your pocket: people have been convicted of DUI under those circumstances --- because possessing the keys and being in the driver's seat meant they were in control of the vehicle.

Or if you were drunk, parked somewhere on the shoulder of the interstate to rest.

That is: there are cases where choosing not to drive can increase the probability that you get arrested for DUI or impaired driving.

There are also cases, where people on horseback or 4 wheelers were charged with DUI, even though the driver's didn't possess a license.

There was a case where a guy with a private fence-enclosed road was charged with DUI for driving his unregistered farm truck in his own backyard, by an officer who breached his fence on foot, after observing him driving.

Totally ridiculous crap.

Small claims is just that "small" as in usually capped somewhere around $5000. How is that going to pay for medical bills, replace a house, etc.. But beyond that and even if you could round up a thousand others. You're still talking in the low millions and hardly anything that would make a dent in profits let along hurt the company enough to make them care to spend the money necessary to mend their ways. Either way, why should remediation be where things are addressed? Why should we not be trying to prevent the harm in the first place? You know "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" type thing... Personally I'd rather my rivers not smell of refuse and burn in flames. I'd rather not get cancer from my drinking water, and asthma from the air I breath even if I can win millions in court.

As you put your comment in $ (though there are other countries that use $) I will just leave this here:

http://law.freeadvice.com/resources/smallclaimscourts.htm

snowgirl, I truly respect any other rider. I'm only offering advice because, thru the fog of the Internet, you seem to be a newish rider who is just reciting some recently taught doctrine.

My sincere apologies if I've misinterpreted our relative levels of experience.

You have underestimated my experience.

That is the exactly the problem with this mindset. The way you should react to a driver who does not see you (common) is very different from the way you should react to an aggressive/malicious driver who doesn't like you (rare). If you assume the rare case, you may be setting yourself up for an accident in what is actually the common case.

I'm entirely confused here. Assuming that a driver doesn't see me, vs that driver will attempt to hurt me, is a difference only in INTENT not in deed or action. If a car pulls out in front of me, then it doesn't matter if they didn't see me, or they were trying to intentionally harm me, because I'm still dead. So, let me ask you, why shouldn't I assume that just because a driver sees me, that they won't pull out in front of me? I've heard tons of stories of "the person was looking RIGHT AT ME when they pulled out in front of me!"

And at that point all of the intent of the driver in the world is meaningless. Perhaps they didn't register what was going on, perhaps they thought they could make it, perhaps they REALLY DID want to kill you. But none of that matters, because you're the one paying the price.

That means that if someone is standing at a light to make a left-hand turn, or approaching a light to make a left-hand turn, or even waiting on a light for a left-hand turn, then as I'm approaching to go straight through that same intersection, I ensure that I am traveling at a speed such that if that person chooses to make that turn for any reason or intent possible that I will be able to stop in time. Even if that means that I'm creeping up to that intersection.

According to Wikipedia, the only state that really seems to allow lane-splitting (and indeed, is the universal example of a state that allows lane-splitting in the USA) is California. In general, lane-splitting in the US is illegal, while it seems that it is generally widely legal in Europe.

Actually, that wiki article states that lane splitting is illegal in "many states", but it gives no reference, and the only states they specifically mention are Colorado and Nebraska.

If you'll read my quote again, "the only state that really seems to allow..." (emphasis added for the reading impaired) What does this mean? It means that no shit, I saw the Colorado and Nebraska text. Yet they were equivocal about if those states actually allow lane-splitting or not. Why treat them like you can't lane-split? Because the text also explicitly states that New Mexico has no laws against lane-splitting either, but it does have plenty of laws that mean that lane-splitting would not be legal, and legal precedent is that lane-splitting is a violation of other laws.

Searching for "colorado lane-splitting", I found a forum where people say it's illegal. And a lawyer's webpage stating that lane-splitting is only legal in California. In fact, I found that apparently there was supposed to be an initiative in 2008 to make lane-splitting legal, Ballotpedia says that no such initiative exists. And the Wikipedia article also gave a reference quite conveniently to Nebraska law stating:

I hadn’t considered that possibility, but I went ahead and looked it up.

Washington (where this occurred) is an add-on state. This means that you must get liability coverage, but you can also “add-on” coverage for your own vehicle if you cause an accident.

Fault is determined and the insurance company of the person who caused the accident must pay to repair the damages caused by his accident (liability coverage), however they won’t cover the damage to his own vehicle unless he purchased the additional full coverage.

http://www.insureme.com/insurance/washington-insurance

this state requires only liability insurance, which covers bodily injury and property damage you cause others while driving your automobile

Now (for the sake of argument), if it had been in a no-fault state, the fault would still have been significant. The driver not at fault wouldn’t be able to file claims against the driver-at-fault for medical costs, because each drivers’ own insurance company has to pay personal injury claims in a no-fault state. However, property damages caused by the other driver can be recouped by suing in small claims court, so if property damage occurred determining which driver was at fault is still necessary even in a no-fault state.

http://accident-law.freeadvice.com/auto/fault-no-fault-car-accidents.htm

Under no-fault automobile insurance laws, the good driver does not have to prove that the crash was somebody else’s fault before getting his money. His insurance company picks up medical bills*, rehabilitation costs and lost wages up to the amount he purchased.

...

When it comes to physical damage to your car or its contents, unlike compensation for bodily injury claims, insurance claims are still based on fault. Those claims are handled in the same way as those in a state with a fault law: by filing a lawsuit against the bad driver or looking to your own collision insurance.

*Lawsuits, however, are permitted for injuries meeting a certain threshold

The Internet says you're wrong: http://insurance.freeadvice.com/insurance_help.php/102_170_601.htm

---linuxrocks123

while the analogy sucked massively, you didn't do all that much better. a landlord does not have the right to inspect the premises at any time, renters have a right to privacy just like homeowners. Specifics vary from state to state, but I don't know of a single state in the US that allows a landlord to indiscriminately enter a rented apartment without notice.

http://real-estate-law.freeadvice.com/landlord_tenant/security_deposit_privacy.htm

Acetaminophen overdose will harm your liver, although it's reversible at low overdoses (oxymoron), and has a treatment window of many hours even at high doses. Opioid overdose will stop your breathing. So... which would you rather overdose on?

There is no maximum dose for opioids, and it's simple to prescribe pure morphine. Doctors outside of hospice/oncology are extremely hesitant to prescribe doses that would be almost certainly lethal for opioid-naive patients though. Hence why drug companies add other pain killers at the highest possible doses so as to maximize pain relief.

Also, oxycotin's manufacturer recently lost a lawsuit and was held liable for poor outcomes associated with abusing the drug. That opened the door for individual doctors to be sued as well. Obviously now there's huge financial incentive for drug companies and doctors ensure that addicts go to the ER with liver failure and live, rather than simply die and be found later, hence acetaminophen being added to opioids. Plus oxycotin is now ridiculously expensive and other companies aren't about to make a generic.

Economics 101: The market is driven by expectations

If people expect and are willing to pay the price, they will pay the price. Why should they lower prices on an item if people are still buying it?

The problems start when the manufacturers collude and fix prices. That's illegal http://business-law.freeadvice.com/trade_regulation/price_fixing.htm

The reason manufacturers spec a different battery than everyone else is so they can fix prices without collusion, sidestepping the price fixing laws altogether.

Laptop battery form factors and interfaces would be a good candidate for regulatory action which required standardization. It could be framed as a environmental necessity since if a particular laptop doesn't sell at all, and they have a crap ton of spare batteries to dispose of which only work in that laptop, they created a bunch of environmental impact for FAIL.

It's also a gigantic opportunity for someone to create a set of standardized batteries, then make adapters for each laptop which adjust voltage down or up as necessary, and have capability to adjust the charging to the standard battery's liking.

The pricing issues are caused by a lack of competition. Such a business would be future proof since as new battery technology matures, and the old batteries wear out, they could sell new standardized batteries that fit in the old adapters. Extrapolate to camcorders, cameras and everything else that uses proprietary battery form factors.

There's a ton of money to be made here if you could make it work and handle fulfillment. I have several devices packed in boxes which I won't get a new battery for. In a lot of cases the batteries cost more than the original item did.

I'd rather have businesses compeat to stay in business instead of having a monopoly of unlimited duration.

The problem with that is you are trading limited monopoly for indefinite monopoly. Without some sort of protection you risk there being no way for a new business, with little capital, to bring a significant idea to production.

I see you leave out a big part of what I said, about trademarks, perhaps to mislead? Trademarks can potentially last forever. In my post you replied to, or anywhere else in this thread, I never did say there shouldn't be patents. What I did say is that they should not be of unlimited duration.

Falcon

If you look back at why unions starter (1920s, 1930s)[....]

Um, no. You got modded to 4: Insightful and you're just talking out your ear.

Unions peaked in their "power" in the 20's. Get it right.

The main tool (maybe the only real tool) that unions had in their "arsenal" was the strike. That is what hit the owners in the only place they had any feeling - the pocketbook.

Once that was off the table (made illegal), the whole arrangement was bought and sold, IMO.

You (and everyone else too) should look into it. It's actually a pretty interesting history. There's a lot out there to read on the subject, but a good, concisce place to start reading is this encyclopedia. I recommend the hardcopy - check your local library - but it appears there's a free online version available here. There's a Table of Contents, so start where you want, but this chapter would be as good a place as any.

A final set of notes with regard to the anti-union whining (from someone who's never been a member of one):
1) The company got saddled with a union for a reason - it's not something done on a whim
2) If there's a good reason, they can get unsaddled just about as easily.
3) For new employees, a) it's all voluntary (free to look elsewhere, right?) and b) there's a good chance the job they're applying for was only there (or only worth getting) due to past unionization.
4) A union is in theory supposed to be membership based. If your company is picking up part or all of your tab and you're not seeing all the benefits you'd expect, I'd stop wondering why and make the arrangements as a union to start paying all your own dues - I'm sure your fellow union-ites (or whatever you're called) could see the logic in that if i had to come to a vote.
5) Bad Analogy for the above: You pay $50/month for 50 channels of cable, but you're surprised that 1/3 of what you're paying for is not the content, but the advertisements between the content. Kinda like actually paying $50/month but only getting 20 days of service. On the other hand, pay $15/month for one channel (a la HBO, Showtime) you get the real deal, straight up - $15 for 30 days of service. Sounds to me like you have a "basic cable" union, but the propaganda in your head makes you expect a "real deal HBO" union.
6) One of my favorite sayings (that I think I actually coined): There's something wrong with everything that's popular. Unions and Capitalism are not exceptions.

Good luck!
-Matt

If you look back at why unions starter (1920s, 1930s)[....]

Um, no. You got modded to 4: Insightful and you're just talking out your ear.

Unions peaked in their "power" in the 20's. Get it right.

The main tool (maybe the only real tool) that unions had in their "arsenal" was the strike. That is what hit the owners in the only place they had any feeling - the pocketbook.

Once that was off the table (made illegal), the whole arrangement was bought and sold, IMO.

You (and everyone else too) should look into it. It's actually a pretty interesting history. There's a lot out there to read on the subject, but a good, concisce place to start reading is this encyclopedia. I recommend the hardcopy - check your local library - but it appears there's a free online version available here. There's a Table of Contents, so start where you want, but this chapter would be as good a place as any.

A final set of notes with regard to the anti-union whining (from someone who's never been a member of one):
1) The company got saddled with a union for a reason - it's not something done on a whim
2) If there's a good reason, they can get unsaddled just about as easily.
3) For new employees, a) it's all voluntary (free to look elsewhere, right?) and b) there's a good chance the job they're applying for was only there (or only worth getting) due to past unionization.
4) A union is in theory supposed to be membership based. If your company is picking up part or all of your tab and you're not seeing all the benefits you'd expect, I'd stop wondering why and make the arrangements as a union to start paying all your own dues - I'm sure your fellow union-ites (or whatever you're called) could see the logic in that if i had to come to a vote.
5) Bad Analogy for the above: You pay $50/month for 50 channels of cable, but you're surprised that 1/3 of what you're paying for is not the content, but the advertisements between the content. Kinda like actually paying $50/month but only getting 20 days of service. On the other hand, pay $15/month for one channel (a la HBO, Showtime) you get the real deal, straight up - $15 for 30 days of service. Sounds to me like you have a "basic cable" union, but the propaganda in your head makes you expect a "real deal HBO" union.
6) One of my favorite sayings (that I think I actually coined): There's something wrong with everything that's popular. Unions and Capitalism are not exceptions.

Good luck!
-Matt

You could still become a naturalized citizen....

There appears to be a misunderstanding of the dictionary definition of the term "monopoly" ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/monopoly ), which, to paraphrase is "Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service." By this definition of the term "monopoly" it means that there no alternatives to a product or service to choose from.

This is compared against the legal definition of "monopoly" under the Sherman Act - which, to simplify is "a monopoly is where nearly all of one product type or service is owned by one person or group of people within a community or area." ( http://business-law.freeadvice.com/trade_regulatio n/monopoly_power.htm ).

You are saying that you have alternatives to Windows, so they don't have a monopoly - which is correct in the conventional, non-legal sense. But under the defintion of monopoly power based on the more recent interpretations of the Sherman Act, the fact that "nearly all" of desktop computers run Microsoft Windows means that Microsoft has monopoly power over the computer desktop market.

"I suppose the classic distinction between free speech and libel is that the former is in a transient medium, while the latter is mass-distributed and accessible for the long term."

Are you sure you get this?

Check:

http://injury-law.freeadvice.com/libel_and_slander /defamation_character.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel

all the best,

drew

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biOFnAlXrV8
  A UFO takes a potcake for nefarious purposes.

You appear to be speaking literally out of your ass. The Big Evil Corporations generally don't like paying billions of dollars in class action law suits and individual damages. Notice all the lawyers with infomercials begging you to call if you took cialis, viagra or countless other drugs? Yeah, that's why. So no, the whole Big-Evil-Corporations-just-want-to murder-people-to-get-a-quick-buck just doesn't fly. They spend more on settlements than they make. Take Zyprexa for example, the company (Eli Lilly) paid out $700 million to a class action lawsuit. It cost them $1 billion and 15 years to produce the drug. It's utter paranoia to think that companies don't have an interest in making safe drugs. Not to mention that CEO's hate it when their brand is associated with killing people - but they LOSE MONEY WHEN THEY MAKE DRUGS THAT DO THAT!

Sometimes mistakes are made. Sometimes sample sizes are too small. Sometimes greedy scientists deny reality and ignore results. Because it's THEIR fault when drugs kill people. If you're a scientist and you KNOW a drug will kill people you should tell someone - loudly. All it takes in ONE research scientist coming forward and serious doubt and a strong foundation for a class action lawsuit will be laid.

Do yourself a favor. Find a good law dictionary and look up the word "monopoly". Heck, I'll even google the answer for you. Read this. And this. Go ahead, I'll wait.

...

...

Still believe that the finding of Microsoft as a monopoly was bogus?

???

If you do, what are you smoking, and can I have some?

Here's the buyer asking if the contract is binding including an email from the seller.

The example I know of happens in the United States. It goes like this: A man owns a piece of land including a private beach. He does not fence, sign or otherwise make public the fact that it is private. His neighbours use the beach to bathe and launch boats off of regularly for several years. The man one day fences off the lot. The neighbours sue. The case is ruled in their favor because he had not, in all those years, defended his property

No, It isn't a joke but a scam. Just reading their FAQs section gives the scam vibes.

One of their victims took professional help, here's what he found:

I saw a copyright attorney yesterday. He agrees with some of the other posts here-the letter was not written by an attorney! Yes, they are a real organization, but basically these are cease & desist letters. They are putting us on notice that they are watching us. If you buy something else now-they can sue you. My attorney is 99.9% sure they will not go through with this-as they would have to hold court in the Dallas Cowboys stadium! This is a copycat of how the music industry went after the people using Napster. Whoever wrote the letter is quoting non-existent laws, no such thing as Federal Copyright Law, it's just Copyright Law. Also, the sections of the law they are quoting are incorrect. The ESPC has no right to enforce "fines." Until you receive something with court documents attached-it means nothing. And-they would have to send it certified mail.

And so on ..
original link http://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=20248 3

What jurisdictions can you think of that allow you to shoot trespassers? I believe you may be mistaken. Shooting another person (intentionally) is assault (best case scenario) to murder (or attempted murder). Period. "Reasonable fear for your life" is an affirmative *defense*. If you can provide something to back up these mysterious jurisdictions in which you can shoot people for civil trespass in which you have no fear of bodily harm, I'd really love to see them. [Again: The general rule is that a reasonable fear of bodily harm constitutes an affirmative defense; not carte blanche.]

Re: AP, check out http://real-estate-law.freeadvice.com/adverse_poss ession.htm or http://www.lectlaw.com/files/lat06.htm

Actually, it's funny you should say that, because, depending on where you live, there may be laws which may make it illegal for companies to refuse to deal. In the case of US law, I found this reference on Refusal to Deal. And here's the Canadian version.

The fundamental goal of these laws it to prevent anti-competative actions by a company or group of individuals. In this particular example (assuming it was a US company), this may apply if the 'cake' manufacturer refused to deal with grocery store A but did deal with grocery store B in order to restrict competition in some fashion.

Googling the question turns up this site: freeadvice.com who knows how accurate it is.

Does putting your words in bold, or random words off of a some strange website you found, make you think people will feel they are more legitimate?

The bolding was because it was quoted. Even I understood that. Granted the parent poster could have included the link plus most here quote with italics. But, I figure it would be better to show you where they got the information instead of just modding you down for the superiority complex without trying to debunk the information yourself.

http://law.freeadvice.com/government_law/military_ law/military_us_constitution.htm

You can check it now if you want, but the information is accurate.

Does putting your words in bold, or random words off of a some strange website you found, make you think people will feel they are more legitimate?

Was that really necessary? If you wanted a link, all you had to do was ask for it. What have you added to the discussion apart from animosity and ill will?

Courts generally require active steps to protect the secrecy of valuable information. However, if there's a stated "don't tell" policy, then that can represent sufficient activity to preserve secrecy. Here too, the nature of the secret will dictate the type of effort and action required to preserve secrecy.

The only holdover I know of that it still has is that an officer facing a court martial can choose for his jury to only be fellow commissioned officers and not enlisted personnel or warrant officers.

That isn't quite right. Anyone facing court martial is by default a) tried by officers, and b) tried by people senior to him/herself. Enlisted members may request that 1/3 of the jury be composed of enlisted members, but if they don't so request, they get all officers.

Here are some links

Sean

http://law.freeadvice.com/general_practice/contrac t_law/binding_contract.htm

From the above link to confirm what I recall in a college Business Law course, a contract such as this EULA would require three elements; (1) Competent Parties, (2) Consideration and (3) Mutual Assent or Meeting of the Minds.

So, for item (1), most of us technically inclined individuals would believe they are not competent since they have written up such an insulting agreement. (2) I'm stretching here, but suppose someone bought me a CD of music, then there would be consideration between the original purchaser and Sony so that's been met, but for (3), there's a snowballs chance in hell that anyone who reads and understands that EULA would agree to it.

For me, I'll just substitute my own reality for theirs should I be interested in any musician they try and push down my throat.

this article is rather brief, but provides a little more insight on how the courts feel about it

According to this site, this is only a crime when you know that the property is stolen.

The fact that the NSA breaks crypto is widely known. On the other hand, I happen to know that the yes-or-no answer to whether the NSA can break a specific cryptosystem is always classified Top Secret. They do stuff like that all the time. General info is For Official Use Only, operational details are TS and usually compartmentalized. Schaub is guilty of divulging classified information. The info could be correct, or it could be wrong, but in either case, Schaub is in a lot of trouble. And if he backtracks, and claims he doesn't know what he's talking about, he's guilty of perjury. Whoopsie.

Second, I'd like to point out that saying you can't have crypto on your computer is like saying you can't have a lock on your house: stunningly idiotic. With the kind of viruses going around today, you're more likely to have your credit card info stolen from your hard drive rather than off your dresser. But we can't use locks to protect that info? I guess everyone running Windows 2000 is going to jail.

To sum up: the defendant is a fucking pedo, the judges are fucked in the head, and Schaub is just plain fucked.

P.S. In closing, I'd like to say hi to all my friends in the Intelligence Community. You know who you are. I miss you all dearly. Keep up the good work.

from here:

WHAT IS PRICE FIXING?
What is price fixing - legal answers at FreeAdvice.com's business section

"Most state statutes provide that fixing the price of a product or service in agreement with another individual or business is illegal. The general rule provides that a vendor may not in combination with another vendor agree to set a certain price thereby creating a fixed price within a certain market. A business acting on its own and not in concert with another may use legitimate efforts to obtain the best price they can, including their ability to raise prices to the detriment of the general public. Also, conformity of prices within a given product is not illegal unless such conformity was created by a combination of vendors agreeing on a set price. For example, where competitors agree to sell their goods or services at a specified price, minimum price or maximum price and they receive profits from such an agreement, they are in violation of price fixing. Additionally, setting a price to be charged only within a certain area in order to get rid of competition or to create a monopoly is generally illegal under most state laws. A majority of states have also enacted a "Below-Sales-Cost" law wherein businesses may not sell goods below cost if they do so with anti-competitive intent or effect."

So, giving away something at a loss to drive competition out of business is illegal. I've never been a fan of anti-trust legislation, and now maybe anti-MS zealots will see my point of view if these laws start affecting them adversely.

When I buy a book do I get from the publisher a special license to read it?
You get an implied license giving you all the rights granted under copyright law. If you look at your CD it probably has a little area where it says "copyright Sony Music" or something similar. The comparison to a hammer doesn't make sense since it is a physical object, the closest comparison would be when you buy a hammer, you own the hammer, you don't own the design of the hammer if it is innovative and protected intellectual property (patented).
And if you still think there's a license, perhaps you can point me to its terms..?
The terms are those of copyright law the publisher retains certain rights, and you have certain rights.
In fact this section is written very vaguely on purpose in order to leave the courts with free hands in deciding what's fair use and what's not.
True it's handled on a case by case basis, but show me a case where a non-educational reproduction that impacts the potential market for sales has been upheld. In Playboy vs Frena the court found "PEI's right under 17 U.S.C. Section 106(3) to distribute copies to the public has been implicated by Defendant Frena. Section 106(3) grants the copyright owner "the exclusive right to sell, give away, rent or lend any material embodiment of his work." and in Harper & Row vs Nation Enterprises "More important, to negate fair use one need only show that if the challenged use should become widespread, it would adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work."
There are fair uses (ie mix tapes, backups, adaption to run on other devices, etc), but making copies and giving them to friends is not one

Another poster said Choicepoint doesn't care about you because you are just a number - you don't pay for its services, the companies do. Right, makes sense.

But, reading your situation above, could someone bring a libel suit against Choicepoint? According to some random site I found, libel is a written defamation, and defamation is:

Defamation, sometimes called "defamation of character", is spoken or written words that falsely and negatively reflect on a living person's reputation.
If a person or the news media says or writes something about you that is understood to lower your reputation, or that keeps people from associating with you, defamation has occurred.

In some ways its a stretch, as it isn't directly related to your "character," but its hard to deny that erroneous information doesn't lower your reputation. Companies charge higher interest rates or insurance premiums to "riskier" types of people; if your Choicepoint says you rent when you own and are single when you're married, then, hey, to an auto insurance company, you look riskier. Looks to me like your reputation was falsly lowered. Also, remember, average Joes don't need to show negligence like public figures do (that is, you don't need to prove that Choicepoint is knowingly publishing bad information, just that they are).

IANAL, nor a law student, so I have not studied libel case law to know if this would hold up, but it makes a lot of sense to me. Anyone have any thoughts?