Slashdot Mirror

Yet, no more certainly an honest man is always a truthsayer, than a liar never is.

Not a lawyer, but I believe the act of ordering is entering into a verbal contract. "I would like a coffee." followed by "Ok, that will be $5.99" is the extent of what would be required to enter into the contract. Same reason it's not legal to go into a restaurant, order a bunch of food, then just leave after the waitstaff enters the order.

It would be interesting to get an actual lawyer's interpretation of how this applies. The whole "both parties must agree to the terms" stuff in there that seems to blow my theory right out of the water.

They even questioned me on my address being different, as if I should have updated my drivers license after buying a house. That is the kind of misinformation that is incredibly commonly spread to game the system and only the tip of the iceberg.

Caveat 'Emptor'!

In the UK it is an offence, albeit a minor one that will most probably result in only a caution, to fail to inform the DVLA (Driver & Vehicle Licensing Authority) of a change of address.

However, based on the rest of your post, I'm going to hazard a guess that you live in the US. It's not clear which state, but, despite what I thought I'd originally found, it turns out it doesn't matter: "every state requires you to update your address after any move, typically within thirty days ... failing to update a license or registration is actually a crime in most states. Generally, the crime is a misdemeanor (punishable by less than a year in jail) and/or fines. Of course, the harshest of these penalties are rarely imposed absent blatant and knowing disregard of the law, but best not to chance fate."

Of course taking legal advice from a random pseudanonymous poster (fwiw ianal) is no different to taking legal advice from a.n. other random anonymous poster is no different from taking legal advice from a random unverified website.

Like I said, 'buyer' beware!

Being better than the worst 5% of drivers would still make driverless cars far more dangerous than human drivers on average.

On average yes, but on average most drivers aren't crashing their cars. If the A.I. is consistently better than the worst 5% of drivers currently driving, that might be enough to dramatically reduce car accidents. I don't know what bar we need to hit to reduce the accident rate, but I'm not sure it's particularly high. There are a lot of drivers each day, but there aren't actually that many accidents as a proportion of the total number of drivers.

Let's consider Los Angeles, there are approximately 4 million commuters every day. I strongly suspect they have fewer than 200,000 accidents a day. In fact, it looks like there are around 220 serious car accidents in Los Angeles, on average, per day. If those accidents are largely attributable to the worst drivers, replacing all drivers with autonomous vehicles that are only better than the worst 5% would virtually eliminate accidents, because the those accidents would be largely caused by the worst 0.006% of drivers.

Now we can't be sure that all of those accidents are caused by poor driving, but these statistics indicate that more than a third of the accidents (162k) were attributed to speed (49k) or drunk driving (11k). I think that most people would agree that reducing the number of accidents by a third would be a pretty big improvement. If we look at this page that estimates that 80% of all traffic accidents are the result of driver inattention instead, then it's possible that relatively poor autonomous systems could still result in an 80% or higher reduction in accidents.

My point is that by limiting the worst behaviour on the roads we might trigger an unexpectedly disproportionate reduction in the rate and severity of accidents.

Let's have the pedantic reason why they aren't the same

Okay, I'll bite. Google "us jail vs prison". One of the first hits comes up with:

At the most basic level, the fundamental difference between jail and prison is the length of stay for inmates. Think short-term and long-term. Jails are usually run by local law enforcement and/or local government agencies, and are designed to hold inmates awaiting trial or serving a short sentence.

[Emphasis mine] The original point was likely that local law enforcement, especially in the more remote locales, are often more brutal (and other consequences of being strapped for cash) than enforcement in federal facilities.

"I learned long ago (back in the days of dial-up BBSes), never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw[1]

You want a Real Argument AC? Let's see. First, what you are doing here is actually an Ad hominem attack - you are attacking me for having a low UID - not what I wrote. I did not attack anyone, I was merely commenting on the tactics used by trolls. Look at the story now and you'll see that my comments on moderation have already been validated to some degree.

Or did you want to fight about Trump and the memo? In that case Carter Page is a very suspicious character. I'm not surprised the FBI was interested in him. What we know is that this memo is intentionally biased, leaving out the full extent of the evidence brought in the initial FISA warrant. At that time Steele was still a reliable informant for the FBI. To obtain a warrant one does not need the statements of informants to be sworn testimony, so under the Gates rule the combination of a credible informant along with the accumulation of other evidence, the FISA warrant would not be illegal. How the informant came by their suspicion is not at all important - the courts assume that informants are acting in their own interests and are quite likely to be lying. That is why they need additional investigative evidence, which the FBI already had on Page. Once they had that first warrant the continuations where likely based on the ongoing evidence of collusion and other crimes obtained through their investigation. But this memo has been carefully crafted so as to ignore the full evidence, and we know that because other people who have seen that evidence say so. You might not believe them, but then who can say without seeing the evidence?

What I see is that the same republication FBI agents that were instrumental in swinging the vote in Trumps favor, were also concerned that their new dear leader was surrounded by people with links to Russia, and started looking into them to remove the danger to the president. Then the president lost the plot...

[1] In case you think that is also an Ad hominem attack, note that I did not specify who was the pig...

A quick search says that, no, minors in the US are legally capable of consenting to a contract: citation, citation, citation, and if you need more I suggest trying Google. The bottom line is that "I am a minor" cannot allow you to void certain types of contracts, it's necessary for the minor to act before they're of age to have the contract nullified, and courts tend to not let you use the "I'm a minor!" card when the contract in question is with a bank.

The problem actually is more one of finding somebody willing to take the risks involved with forming a contract with a minor--as a general rule of thumb, you shouldn't do so unless the law in your state explicitly says that these contracts will be binding anyway, and some laws exist pretty much entirely to keep from fucking minors over by having them unable to form necessary contracts. (For example, car insurance is a contract & some states refuse to issue a driver's license without proof of insurance.) That said, the details will vary from state to state right down to the list of what types of contracts are going to be explicitly non-voidable and details thereof, consult a lawyer experienced with contract law in the jurisdiction(s) in question or avoid the problem entirely.

Most credit card companies seem to go with Option #2.

Also, the whole 'debt ends up on the credit of cosigner' issue is something that happens normally, and most minors have the basic problem of 'no income.' A 16-year-old who is already running their own successful business isn't going to need a cosigner for their credit card unless local law requires it.

check your facts.. a simple google search refutes this absolute you give

In general, the GP is correct because what the GP did NOT spell out "absolute" at all. Of course, everything in law has exceptions. From a quick google, you can get the answer here.

Of course, as with most things in a courtroom, every rule has its exception. In the rare instance that both parties agree that the results of a polygraph exam should be admissible for some reason, the court could allow it as evidence. Polygraphs are also commonly used as part of the screening process for certain types of jobs, such as law enforcement and some high level security positions. Nevertheless, for purposes of court procedures, absent a stipulation of the parties, the results of a lie detector test are likely never admissible.

What's sad is the fans have passion and tell better stories and understand the source material better that the studio's hired hacks. Look what a farce the rebooted Star Trek has become. Every reboot really.

Funny story: Once a puritan attorney-general decided to shut down the porno movie industry by prosecuting the actresses for prostitution and financers as pimps. He took a test case to court, but the judiciary bukakked all over his face with a finding that made clear the porno movie industry was legal.

It would be funny if Paramount tried to fuck this fan over in court and ended up legitimizing fan films.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... http://www.slate.com/articles/... https://www.hg.org/article.asp... http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/08...

> "The bill creates a regime under which digital communications causing 'serious emotional distress' are subject to an escalating regime that starts as 'negotiation, mediation or persuasion' but reaches up to creating the offenses of not complying with an order, and 'causing harm by posting digital communication.'

Lawyers are infamous for using dirty tactics in 'negotiation, mediation or persuasion' in 'digital communications' that cause 'serious emotional distress.' It's their job to make the other side so miserable and stressed out they beg them to stop and agree to their terms. Taunt. Harass. Threaten. They're not supposed to, but they do anyway. Will the bill cover them? http://www.civiljustice.co.nz/... http://netk.net.au/whitton/ocl... http://www.smh.com.au/comment/... http://angiemedia.com/2009/01/... http://www.dri.org/DRI/course-... http://www.hg.org/article.asp?...

> The bill covers posts that are racist, sexist, or show religious intolerance, along with hassling people over disability or sexual orientation. There's also a new offense of incitement to suicide (three years' jail).

Ha ha. of course not!!!

Also, I guess you forgot about the Roxanne and Herbert Pulitzer divorce, that set the style for these sort of "let's get the dirty laundry out" celebrity divorces, such as Britney Speares in 2007, and everyone now airing all the dirty laundry on facebook.

Thanks for a reasoned response. Now, back at ya:

> As for dumbass decisions, I can only say I've heard of a number of decisions at the national level, even at the supreme court, I strongly disagree with, but only because either the law wasn't clear and the case was incredibly difficult, or the case was politically motivated.

Like the Bush Florida thing? Hardly the court's proudest moment, but I was speaking from the Australian perspective.

If you would like an example of how far above everyone else these pompous asses consider themselves, check this out. Barristers got immunity from negligence, and this was gifted by the High Court itself. Their reasoning for granting their own profession (but no one else's, like say, Doctors) was that the public deserved "finality of decision." No nasty, unsightly having a barristers conduct challenged. The public just has to suck on it. No other profession gets away with that. One justice dissented, but the others were all for it. Politicians didn't make that law up. That was a finding of the High Court. If you want an example of pompous superiority, look no further:

http://www.hg.org/articles/article_670.html

As for bad decisions, yeah, I would hope most decisions are reasonable, but they make some incredibly reckless decisions and here once you're appointed a judge it's extremely rare to be removed. Read the papers here and pretty much every day you'll hear some howler decision. No in theory a bad judge can be removed, but in all my life I've only ever heard of 2 cases where that happened. Anyone else doing a bad job would be fired. Judges are 'above the law'. In theory this protects them from political interference, and they're trusted to look after themselves. Fox Henhouse.

> Every time I hear a judge screech "*My* court" or make a dumb ass decision Are you a lawyer, court reporter, or bailiff?
Here at least, when challenged, yes, they really say that and it speaks volumes about their attitude. It's not their court. It's the taxpayers' court. They're nothing more than any other public servant. And really I get tired of this guff that they "work hard and are underpaid." You can say that of nearly any profession: even the poor bastard stacking groceries at 2am. Truth is you could probably cut judges salary by 1/10th and the civil courts which are useless would still be clogged up, but since the general public seldom gets to use them so what?

> You couldn't possible be American since American judges don't wear wigs.
No, but they do have the black power capes. This, like the wigs, is supposed inspire respect and awe in you.

> I agree but that's not the judge's fault, at least not in the US anyway, and I'm not sure how that would be the Judge's fault in any system that was borrowed from the British either. This is a topic for a completely different conversation.

But highly relevant because judges and lawyers block changes that would interrupt in their gravy train. I've heard justice delayed is justice denied, but so is justice you can't afford. Here the civil courts spend a lot of time entertaining big companies in pissing contents, while Q.C.'s charge rates that are beyond ludicrous. Richard Ackland who writes for Fairfax is a lawyer and has had a lot of really bad stuff to say about the profession, amongst them the gentlemans club which hands out Q.C.'s for mates. It's just a license to print money, and it's hard to even get a lawyer to sit down with you to discuss a case. If they can see you can't pay their $300 an hour, they'll show you the door. The judicial system has become a money making enterprise which is has precious little to do with "justice".

I've been through the courts, and occasionally I have to engage lawyers for commercial disputes. This is where my contempt comes. The legal system is all about serving judges and lawyers. It's not about justice. Do you really think the legal system lives up to that idea? It really needs a major o

Meanwhile I am writing this on a Mac, which I was free to choose,

I too am typing this on a Mac, which I freely switched to.

by your definition Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly. But tell that to the EU.

Strictly speaking Microsoft does have a monopoly. If that is not acceptable see what other law dictionaries say.

Falcon

If you didn't get it when I said I'm typing this on a Mac, I'm not MS fanbous, if you look at my previous statements about MS you'll see I oppose MS business tactics.

Put this in your email signature:

She was let off easy...

Gee, that's the exact opposite of every single definition of "defamation" available to check online.

This isn't legal advice, but while in a strict dictionary sense "defamation" might be anything said that hurts a reputation, truth is an affirmative defense. The articles linked above state that no action is called for and no damages occur when someone states a truth. The person whose reputation is tarnished by the truth earned that reputation. Speaking or printing the truth therefore does no damage to the rightful reputation. That seems to this non-attorney to mean you can call the speech or publication by any name you want, but you're not going to get money by suing someone for telling the truth.

Again, I am not a lawyer, but grade-school Social Studies teachers in the U.S. teach their students about John Peter Zenger and the case of New York v. Zenger. That case set forth truth as a defense for slander and libel in the common law of the North American colonies of England.

BTW, where are "defamiation" and "plaese" on any of the above sites? Do I need the latest edition of Black's? I can't find those definitions at all, oh careful and detail-oriented A. Coward. Without resolving those two issues, I'm having trouble following your carefully stated premise and well-reasoned arguments to your no doubt brilliant conclusion.

Wow. This comment had absolutely nothing to do with the article, yet the person is modded 2 points most likely because he/she bashed Bush. Think we could tune down the political banter around here and have posts actually relating to the tech topics at hand?
    And to reply to the orig. comment that was posted about this only happening in Singapore may be correct in this case, but this happens all over the world. And there is a Computer Misuse Act in at least Britain, which was created in 1990. Currently the US *does NOT* have a law against using wifi access points. However there has been a law on the books (in the US) http://www.hg.org/redir.asp?url=http://www.law.cor nell.edu:80/uscode/18/1030.html in which I could see being twisted in order to crack down on people "stealing" wifi as its been labeled.
    Personally those who have open wifi networks need to close them. Although an arguement could be made that if someone is able to just walk around on someone's wifi then why wouldn't this extend to someone who is using a very simple security hole on a large business or government network? You can't cherry pick. Regardless if the latter was a security hole that had to be exploited in order to gain access.. the same issue applies to wifi networks. It is a security issue and always has been. But I believe most APs; I live in the US so I don't know about the rest of the world; are now shipping with WEP or WAP turned on. I could be wrong in this notion... I have an older AP.
    While I'm in favor of utilizing an open wifi network as long as its residential, I make no mistakes about the ethics of the action. It is wrong. Whether the person is ignorant of the issues at hand or not. I think many people just try to rationalize it so its good in their own eyes.

My point is that people don't seem to use common sense when writing legal documents, which include patents

Take this small bit of legal code that I found just out on the internet, here is the link

To the extent that items within this Article are also within Articles 3 and 8, they are subject to those Articles. If there is conflict, this Article governs Article 3, but Article 8 governs this Article.

This might be acceptable computer code but when you do something like this in a legal document, which is supposed to help clearify things, you end up creating confusion. Why do you think that lawyers have such a strangle hold of the system. Because they make it hard to read so only some who works with all the time can work with efficiently. The above example could be broken down to something clearer but imagine taking a complex idea and then adding to the complexity of a patent by written unclear or something filled in with made up jaragon.

Basically if the concept cannot be explained in which a reasonably intellect person can understand it, reject and make them do a better job of writing instead of just the PTO just saying screw let everyone else figure it out.

Ladas & Parry

World Intellectual Property Organization

SUMMARY OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & LICENSING LAWS

Copyright Law FAQ

/peter