Slashdot Mirror

GM has had it for years!

Typically, the salvage award is approximately 10-25% of the total value of property that the salvor recovers. However, in certain circumstances the percentage of the value awarded to the salvor may be as high as 50% of the total value of property recovered.

Sounds like the reward is based on effort and safety. Seeing that it's going to turn into a multinational effort, my guess is it's a large mix of the two. I assume this is the reason why the reward is so high.

You are always wrong

... because I read Damore's memo and found it to be perfectly reasonable.

James Damore was asked to provide feedback after attending a diversity event at Google; he provided feedback, and then like the crazy nutcases of the Communist Revolution in China, the "feminist" SJWs used that feedback to identify Damore as a prime candidate for destruction in their Cultural Revolution.

Here comes that narrative thing again. Those who demanded and successfully had Damore fired are in the end, not the least bit interested in equality. They want ultimate authority based upon their ideology. The problem of course is that ideologues do not stop. Ideologues, upon getting one concession granted, are emboldened and demand the next step toward whatever their utopia state is.

Today it is elimination of a person who does not agree with their ideals. Tomorrow we start to look like France, who is making it illegal for a man to talk to women. https://qz.com/1106465/a-new-f... Or making it illegal to employ slender women as models https://blog.lawinfo.com/2015/... She must take a test that proves the has a Body Mass Index of 18 or higher. If you have a woman working for you with less, you are fined and imprisoned.

The question that must be asked is that if women are equal to men in all ways, why must we have a plethora of laws to protect them?

The answer of course, is not that women are inferior to men, but that there are female ideologues who demand that women look and act as they demand and use men as the villains in all cases. In the end, if women were dominated by men, they are just trading that for being dominated by misandrist females.

Good luck Google. Today you have made a move Chamberlain would have been proud of, well done, now go back and wait for our next demand.

Is that the one where the supreme court didn't rule that violations of the fourth amendment are okay as long as they're really, really important?

http://resources.lawinfo.com/en/Legal-FAQs/Civil-Versus-Criminal-Law/Federal/what-is-the-difference-between-criminal-law-a.html

The burden of proof is also different in civil and criminal law. Plaintiffs in a civil law suit only need to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant is 51% or more liable (responsible) for the damages. In a criminal matter the defendant does not have to prove that he is innocent. But rather, the prosecutor has to prove to the judge or jury "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged. This burden is very high.

Actually (IANAL) - http://www.lawinfo.com/fuseaction/Client.lawarea/categoryid/144

What do I do if I am arrested?

If you are arrested, submit to the law enforcement officer. Do not resist, even if you are innocent. Your innocence does not make the arrest illegal as long as the officer has conformed to the requirements of a legal arrest. If you resist, even if you are innocent of the charges for which you are arrested, you could be charged with resisting arrest. If the officer does not conform to the requirements of a legal arrest, you should still allow yourself to be taken into custody without resistance. If this happens, you may be entitled to bring an action against the law enforcement officer for false arrest.

This article makes as much sense as proposing new SQL programming techniques on http://chat.lawinfo.com/ .

For once, can't we find and quote an article from a lawyer on reforming the patent system? Or maybe have some lawyers participate in the discussion?

Every Slashdot article on patents or intellectual property starts and ends up with several hundred laymen talking legal theory.

Mod me up or down; you know it's the truth.

The Question: Can those managers be charged with manslaughter now?

Says Bladernr:

"Probably not. If you could prove their behavoir was malicious, instead of merely stupid or calous, then maybe. People performing in their legal line of work are generally protected"

I'm not to sure about that. I know it doesn't apply, but the law in Oregon is:

163.145 Criminally negligent homicide. (1) A person commits the crime of criminally negligent homicide when, with criminal negligence, the person causes the death of another person. (2) Criminally negligent homicide is a Class C felony. [1971 c.743 91]

To me, if it is as simple as the managers telling the engineers who should know to go away, then it is criminal negligence. The guy I called at the county law library said that, in court, "criminal negligence" doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as it does on the street.

Futher, (10) "Criminal negligence" or "criminally negligent," when used with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, means that a person fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to be aware of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. [1971 c.743 7; 1973 c.139 .] This foaming mass comes from Chapter 161 of the ORS, so I don't know if it applies to the laws in Chapter 163, the chapter that defines criminally negligent homicide.

According to Lawinfo, "Negligence is always assessed having regards to the circumstances and to the standard of care which would reasonably be expected of a person in similar circumstances. " Futher from Lawinfo, "Gross negligence is 'Any action or an omission in reckless disregard of the consequences to the safety or property of another.

In view of this, I'd say that being a calous moron could get you in trouble.

Making something perfectly safe or as safe as it can be made is not always sensible. People take unnecessary risks all the time for money and thrills, including astronauts. Insisting on perfect safety would be insanely expensive and boring.

But, speaking personally, If someone didn't do something that they could have, just to save a tiny fraction of the total project cost or to save face, I would want heads to roll. I mean that literally.

Whatever else happens, we must be careful not to make managing inherantly risky endeavors like space travel so risky that good people will back off. I really don't know where that line should be drawn.

I'm guessing that these turkeys won't be charged with anything. Even if they do get fired they will probably be able to get another management job.

I do know one thing for sure. If I don't get on with my day I will miss the laundry-mat and then I'll be charged with criminally negligent stinkiness for sure. Besides, all this law stuff making my head hurt.

The Question: Can those managers be charged with manslaughter now?

Says Bladernr:

"Probably not. If you could prove their behavoir was malicious, instead of merely stupid or calous, then maybe. People performing in their legal line of work are generally protected"

I'm not to sure about that. I know it doesn't apply, but the law in Oregon is:

163.145 Criminally negligent homicide. (1) A person commits the crime of criminally negligent homicide when, with criminal negligence, the person causes the death of another person. (2) Criminally negligent homicide is a Class C felony. [1971 c.743 91]

To me, if it is as simple as the managers telling the engineers who should know to go away, then it is criminal negligence. The guy I called at the county law library said that, in court, "criminal negligence" doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as it does on the street.

Futher, (10) "Criminal negligence" or "criminally negligent," when used with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, means that a person fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to be aware of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. [1971 c.743 7; 1973 c.139 .] This foaming mass comes from Chapter 161 of the ORS, so I don't know if it applies to the laws in Chapter 163, the chapter that defines criminally negligent homicide.

According to Lawinfo, "Negligence is always assessed having regards to the circumstances and to the standard of care which would reasonably be expected of a person in similar circumstances. " Futher from Lawinfo, "Gross negligence is 'Any action or an omission in reckless disregard of the consequences to the safety or property of another.

In view of this, I'd say that being a calous moron could get you in trouble.

Making something perfectly safe or as safe as it can be made is not always sensible. People take unnecessary risks all the time for money and thrills, including astronauts. Insisting on perfect safety would be insanely expensive and boring.

But, speaking personally, If someone didn't do something that they could have, just to save a tiny fraction of the total project cost or to save face, I would want heads to roll. I mean that literally.

Whatever else happens, we must be careful not to make managing inherantly risky endeavors like space travel so risky that good people will back off. I really don't know where that line should be drawn.

I'm guessing that these turkeys won't be charged with anything. Even if they do get fired they will probably be able to get another management job.

I do know one thing for sure. If I don't get on with my day I will miss the laundry-mat and then I'll be charged with criminally negligent stinkiness for sure. Besides, all this law stuff making my head hurt.

The Question: Can those managers be charged with manslaughter now?

Says Bladernr:

"Probably not. If you could prove their behavoir was malicious, instead of merely stupid or calous, then maybe. People performing in their legal line of work are generally protected"

I'm not to sure about that. I know it doesn't apply, but the law in Oregon is:

163.145 Criminally negligent homicide. (1) A person commits the crime of criminally negligent homicide when, with criminal negligence, the person causes the death of another person. (2) Criminally negligent homicide is a Class C felony. [1971 c.743 91]

To me, if it is as simple as the managers telling the engineers who should know to go away, then it is criminal negligence. The guy I called at the county law library said that, in court, "criminal negligence" doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as it does on the street.

Futher, (10) "Criminal negligence" or "criminally negligent," when used with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, means that a person fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to be aware of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. [1971 c.743 7; 1973 c.139 .] This foaming mass comes from Chapter 161 of the ORS, so I don't know if it applies to the laws in Chapter 163, the chapter that defines criminally negligent homicide.

According to Lawinfo, "Negligence is always assessed having regards to the circumstances and to the standard of care which would reasonably be expected of a person in similar circumstances. " Futher from Lawinfo, "Gross negligence is 'Any action or an omission in reckless disregard of the consequences to the safety or property of another.

In view of this, I'd say that being a calous moron could get you in trouble.

Making something perfectly safe or as safe as it can be made is not always sensible. People take unnecessary risks all the time for money and thrills, including astronauts. Insisting on perfect safety would be insanely expensive and boring.

But, speaking personally, If someone didn't do something that they could have, just to save a tiny fraction of the total project cost or to save face, I would want heads to roll. I mean that literally.

Whatever else happens, we must be careful not to make managing inherantly risky endeavors like space travel so risky that good people will back off. I really don't know where that line should be drawn.

I'm guessing that these turkeys won't be charged with anything. Even if they do get fired they will probably be able to get another management job.

I do know one thing for sure. If I don't get on with my day I will miss the laundry-mat and then I'll be charged with criminally negligent stinkiness for sure. Besides, all this law stuff making my head hurt.

I can only suggest that you get a clue. Here's one, courtesy of google. To save you the effort, here's some of the best:

• Civil vs. Criminal FAQon LawInfo.com
• What's the Difference Between a Civil and a Criminal Conviction on Findlaw.com.
• What Makes a Case a Criminal Case? on Findlaw.com
• The Distinction Between Civil and Criminal Law, in USCourts.gov outreach section.
• THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASES on intolaw.

Some additional interesting (and slightly depressing) reading can be found here.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

[...] "patent flooding," the practice of filing large numbers of patents with narrow claims and utility models to "surround" a rival's basic patent on a core technology. ( BRIE Working Paper 89)

In Japan, filing would expose them to patent piracy of their technology through "patent flooding," i.e., inundating the Japanese Patent Office with hundreds of unworthy patent applications using minuscule modifications of the American invention, followed by bullying tactics to get cross-licensing agreements. ( The Patent Fight Gets Ugly)

Just Another Patent System Stupidity, it seems.
--