Slashdot Mirror

Private businesses have the right to be biased assholes, regardless of whether that bias is liberal or conservative.

Not in California.

Rob

And, they'd still all be legally wrong in the US
https://www.upcounsel.com/inte...
https://www.legalmatch.com/law...
from wikipedia: the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. 1831–1839), which makes the theft or misappropriation of a trade secret a federal crime.

As an employer who tried not to hire illegal aliens, but got a lot of illegals as job applicants, it's nothing like you characterize. It is already a crime to hire an illegal alien. The penalty ranges from a few thousand dollars for the first offense, up to tens of thousands of dollars and jail time for multiple offenses.

The problem is the government requires some sort of government ID and a social security number before you can hire someone. But it doesn't give employers any way to authenticate that the documents they receive are legit. I spoke to multiple employment attorneys about this, and the best you can do is make copies of the ID presented to you and keep them on file. This is your due diligence - proof that you attempted to comply with the law to the best of your ability should the employee's legal status come into question.

In other words, the government doesn't make any effort to block illegal immigrants from working. If it wanted to, it's be trivial to implement an electronic system which could verify an applicant's ID as legit. Social security cards are trivial to fake, and they don't even need a real SSN if they don't plan to work past the end of the year (at year's end, employment taxes are submitted and SSNs which don't match the person's name and address on file get flagged by the IRS). Just a simple system which allows you to submit a name and SSN, and it spits back valid/invalid would block about 75% of the illegal applicants we got (based on flagging by the IRS). Likewise, government ID could be confirmed the same way, possibly adding a unique code onto each ID to make forging impossible without access to the original source documents.

But the government doesn't do it. They're not serious about stopping illegal immigrants from working. My hunch is conservative politicians want to keep cheap illegal labor readily available. And liberal politicians want to encourage people to enter the country illegally to skew Congressional reapportionment (House representatives are allocated based on total population - legal and illegal - so every 743,000 illegal immigrants is approximately an extra House seat), and on the outside chance they'll be legalized and become voters (they're disproportionately low income with liberal politics).

Apple CEO Tim Cook, who previously (and privately) pressed Trump on the issue, said on Sunday that 250 of his "co-workers" would be affected by the change.

So he's basically admitted that Apple has hired illegal aliens. (Or if you prefer, non-citizens without proper work authorization documents.) That's a violation of Federal law punishable by fines and imprisonment.

The DACA wasn't a law. It was just the Obama administration saying they wouldn't prosecute for violations of the actual law which mandates fines for hiring non-citizens without Federal work permits. The law is still there, and Cook has now admitted in public that his company is knowingly in violation of it. If he'd kept his mouth shut and only expressed an opinion, he could've feigned ignorance and kept the affected workers in Apple's payroll. But because he tried to publicly use their plight as leverage, he's now put himself into a position where Apple has to fire them or face fines and imprisonment.

The Civil Rights act does not say anything about associating with government agents.

In addition, most courts do not allow [businesses] to refuse service to patrons based on extremely arbitrary conditions.

I'm not moving the goalposts, the homosexual lobby is moving the goalposts. It wasn't good enough to have Civil Unions allowed, it had to say marriage contract on the sheet of paper. Marriage is a religious ceremony in the Christian church, it is not a secular thing. It doesn't matter if the US has adopted the term, it is still a religious ceremony that the US government has no authority over, so shouldn't be ruling one way or another.

Freedom of religion is a thing in the US, not freedom from religion.

If marriage is a secular thing, why did they steal the term, and why is there a distinction between civil unions and marriage?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-...

You are arguing about something from the side of ignorance. You claim that civil unions are the same as marriage, but clearly they aren't or there would be no need for homosexual marriage instead of homosexual civil unions. Civil unions date back to 2000 in the US state of Vermont. Homosexual Marriage is a new thing in the past few years. They are separate things that were supposed to be equal, but never achieved this, but yet rather than fix the issue, marriage was taken away from the Christian churches and forced to be open to homosexuals. Marriage is the term for the ceremony in Christianity, Kiddushin for the contract and Nissu'in or Chupah for the ceremony in Judaism, why not use those terms? The terms in Islam are nikah and zawaj, why not use those? Why take the Christian terms and use them for a civil ceremony with no religious backing?

Wrong. I'm sorry but when it comes to the law, I believe police and lawyers more than a random Slashdot poster like you.

Don't believe it? Go look it up. Verbals threats are completely legal if they are not acted upon. Here is one such piece of info from an actual lawyer. In the future, you might want to stop commenting on things you clearly have no clue about.

I eventually tried "compelled to provide evidence." "Contempt of court" is a good one too

"why can't the court force someone to show where the bodies are buried" led me to this cool comic: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-... but not much else useful

"obstruction of justice" turned up results that were a little too abstract, so I tried "obstruction of justice body" and "obstruction of justice kidnapping", those gave better results.

I heard of a case several decades ago where someone was kidnapped, and the judge forced the defendant to tell where to kidnapped person was, and as a result the defendant was set free, but I can't find a reference to that.

The B in "breaking" has nothing to do with "breaking" anything except the plane. Well, pretty much. That's the simplest way to think of it. If you push a door open (even if it was ajar) then you're still breaking and entering. If you pushed open a gate, you're still breaking and entering. Think of it more like breaking the plane than breaking an object. Even deception is considered breaking and entering. Lemme find you a link...

Here:
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-...

This includes one definition that is the older form (we're talking archaic almost - these laws and interpretations have changed since before I was a kid and I'm nearing 60):
http://www.yourdictionary.com/...

Some areas will vary, of course. So, if you're going to go engage in criminal acts you should contact a lawyer to ensure you're breaking the minimal number of laws. I guess, don't go breaking the law. Anyhow, I'd have figured people knew this by now but you're the second person that I noticed who remarked on this. You're still breaking and entering - just by opening the door. To do so means your hand will have likely passed the threshold/plane. So, not even entering the building might net you a breaking and entering charge. (It's usually a misdemeanor. The burglary, after that, is what's usually a felony.)

If you want more source than that, here
So Are "Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" Signs in Restaurants Legal?
Yes, however they still do not give a restaurant the power to refuse service on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.

For all of your vehemence, you seem to be ignorant of what the law is and says. The equal protections acts created exceptions to a general rule that businesses DO have the right to toss you out if they dont like you, your behavior, or your haircut.

You conveniently forgot to quote this part from legalmatch: These signs also do not preclude a court from finding other arbitrary refusals of service to be discriminatory. So the truth is a lot more nuanced than you claim.

Off topic, but this has nothing to do with the catholic church; neither I nor CS Lewis are/were catholic.

In any case, and for the final time, the right of a business to choose to refuse service is a time honored right (with the exception of cases involving "protected groups"). Ill leave you a few links to get you started; argue with them, not me.

http://politics.stackexchange....
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-...

Name me ONE other context in which a business owner can refuse to serve someone.

Every other context that does not involve a "protected class". This is a fundamental right of businesses. A grocer can refuse to sell you anything at all for any reason at all (and this has been upheld by SCOTUS on a number of different contexts) so long as it does not violate the very specific exceptions (ie, protected classes-- race, disability, etc).

If you want more source than that, here
So Are "Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" Signs in Restaurants Legal?
Yes, however they still do not give a restaurant the power to refuse service on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.
or here or good old yahoo answers (which gets it basically right!).

For all of your vehemence, you seem to be ignorant of what the law is and says. The equal protections acts created exceptions to a general rule that businesses DO have the right to toss you out if they dont like you, your behavior, or your haircut.

If your puny little religious mind thinks you deserve to be able to refuse service,

My puny religious mind is going off of widely understood legal precedent, and showing how that is rational. Maybe you should do the same.

If you had an internet connection on your computer, it'd be very easy to find out. Here, let me help:

---snip---
Are "We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone" Signs in Restaurants Legal?
Yes, however they still do not give a restaurant the power to refuse service on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin. These signs also do not preclude a court from finding other arbitrary refusals of service to be discriminatory. Simply put, restaurants that carry a "Right to Refuse Service" sign are subject to the same laws as restaurants without one.

What Conditions Allow a Restaurant to Refuse Service?
  There a number of legitimate reasons for a restaurant to refuse service, some of which include:

Patrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing trouble
Patrons that may overfill capacity if let in
Patrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed
Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit in
Patrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)
In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer’s presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself.
---snip---

As a former bar owner, I would like to add: Assholes who bring their own booze.

Read the rest: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-...

By adding these religious exemption laws, you're opening up a loophole for all kinds of discrimination. For instance, a proprietor may decide he shouldn't have to serve the Sons of Ham, whom the Bible has said are bad people.
Yay, religion!

Must be a slow news day. You can't patent algorithms

So, how do you explain the fact that the RSA public key encryption algorithm was patented for 20 years?

Must be a slow news day. You can't patent algorithms

It's true, but subtle and depends on the jurisdiction.

I should add all the qualifiers, IANAL, I don't play one on TV, blah blah. This is Law 101 stuff.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/breach-of-contract-defenses-unclean-hands.html

Suing somebody for selling you bad weed should be thrown out because you're committing a crime in buying it.

Why wrongful death could be tried by the family of a burglar against somebody who set up lethal traps in a house....... I have no idea. There's probably a good case with a lengthy judgement about it somewhere... but if you're ever thinking of doing it, in most places it's criminal to set up those kinds of traps.

Legal Match explains:

You can patent pretty much anything under the sun that is made by man except laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas. These categories are excluded subject matter from the scope of patents.

...

What Are Abstract Ideas?
Abstract ideas are concepts like pure mathematics and algorithms. You cannot patent a formula. However, you can patent an application of that formula. Thus, while you cannot patent a mathematical formula that produces nonrepeating patterns, you can patent paper products that use that formula to prevent rolls of paper from sticking together.

In the legal world it is widely accepted that ideas and algorithms cannot be patented. The reason we have/had software patents at all is that despite Bill Gates once saying that it would have been impossible to create Microsoft if software were patentable, Microsoft (and others I imagine) gave the courts a bull shit argument that since running software affects the physical state of the machine it is running on, software is more like a physical object and less like an idea or algorithm. Since the judges knew next to nothing about computers they accepted this bullshit argument hook, line, and sinker.

The problem with Microsoft's argument is that different implementations of the same algorithm create different physical configurations (electrons and so on) of the hardware. Likewise different CPU architectures create different physical configurations and so on. Microsoft's argument ends up with a patent that protects all possible implementations of a algorithm on a computer which is indistinguishable from patenting the algorithm itself.

That incredibly ill-informed and stupid decision opened the floodgates for "... on a computer" patents. The Supreme Court is now trying to rectify that mistake. Abstract ideas cannot be patented. Mathematics cannot be patented. Algorithms cannot be patented. However you can protect the expression of an algorithm by using copyright to protect your particular implementation. You cannot protect all possible implementations of an abstract idea.

There are situations where one could sue anonymously ( http://www.legalmatch.com/law-... ), and they should still have copyright protections ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/w... ) but proving themselves to be the actual authors and have standing to sue might be difficult?

> A new state law in Texas defines the failure to return library books as theft.

It already is. Theft by Conversion.

I am old enough to remember seeing restrooms marked "white" and "colored". During the bad old days everyone understood that a sign that said "We reserve the right to refuse service to any person" was a code phrase for "whites only". It is sad to read that GitHub is so tone-deaf to the lessons of American history.

from http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/restaurants-right-to-refuse-service.html

"Does a Restaurant Have the Unrestricted Right to Refuse Service to Specific Patrons?

No. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits restaurants from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin. In addition, most courts don't allow restaurants to refuse service to patrons based on extremely arbitrary conditions. For example, a person likely can't be refused service due to having a lazy eye."

saying I am old enough to drink alcohol and use it that way, that's a victimless crime.

Until you kill someone because you got drunk at the bar or purchased from a distributor which wouldn't have happened if you hadn't used a fake ID.

Also, using a fake ID as you described might be considered fraudulent use for purpose of establishing a false identification but definitely using a fake ID is a crime.

So using the above, you've committed 2 crimes: false identification and depending on how it is phrased in your state, vehicular homicide, manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide while driving under the influence, negligent homicide and several other variations:

Criminal listings.

In many states, mine included, polygraphs are inadmissible in court. There are no (as in NONE) states that require you take one.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/admissability-of-polygraph-tests-in-court.html

For once I actually RTFA, because I couldn't think of a crime this kid could have been charged with. He is charged with "making a terroristic threat."

Then I wondered what that means, feeling a bit surprised that this kid's actions could be interpreted as a terroristic threat (though, I think we can all agree that sometimes summaries on /. and descriptions in news can be innaccurate, which may very well be the case here), so I found this summary of the common elements of the crime of "making a terroristic threat":

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/making-a-terrorist-threat.html

Basically, my conclusion is that, yes, we should all be afraid--This is getting into "thought crime" territory.

I don't think that "recreational user" has the same meaning you are assuming it does. In some states where it is legal a recreational or medicinal user can grow his or her own Cannibis, which falls under the category of "manufacturing an illegal substance" under federal law. See also.

I've heard that speeding isn't the leading, so some research:
Distracted Driving (speeding #2)
Distracted Driving (Speeding #4)
Not using turn signals 2x worse than distracted driving?
distracted driving
Disparities noticed:
Fatigue: #20 in the first list, #2 in the second

Anyways, I like being distracted; I don't particularly like driving. Bring on the self-driving vehicles! Or other way I can get to work/store without having to be behind the wheel.

The idea that software patents should not exist is based on the idea that all software is simply sets of algorithms. Therefore all software can be boiled down to mathematics: algorithms and formulas. According to commonly held ideas about patent law: "You cannot patent a formula."

But, similarly, you can reduce the gear ratios of a machine down to a mathematical algorithm, or describe the operation of an engine through abstract equations... Does that mean that machines and engines shouldn't be patentable? Of course not... The distinction is that you're not attempting to patent the machine or engine algorithms, but rather the hardware implementing the formula, right?
But the same thing happens in software patents. We (and yes, I'm a patent attorney) don't patent the algorithm. As you note, formulae cannot be patented. Instead, we patent the hardware or the method performed by the hardware. The base algorithm is still public domain, as it should be. If the patent requires hardware, then you can do the formula on a pad of paper with a pen, or in your mind, or using a slide rule, and you cannot possibly infringe the patent.

The idea that software patents should not exist is based on the idea that all software is simply sets of algorithms. Therefore all software can be boiled down to mathematics: algorithms and formulas. According to commonly held ideas about patent law: "You cannot patent a formula."

Sorry, I posted this a sec ago as AC by accident.

The idea that software patents should not exist is based on the idea that all software is simply sets of algorithms. Therefore all software can be boiled down to mathematics: algorithms and formulas. According to commonly held ideas about patent law: "You cannot patent a formula."

You have rights to the air above your land as far up as you can occupy or use - depending upon local zoning regulations.
You can also sue anyone who tresspasses in your airspace, so you could probably sue Google with their low flying drone at 200', but not American Airlines at 40,000'

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/airspace-right-lawyers.html

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&dat=19460601&id=eBoaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=NCUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2585,35429

On their return policy it clearly states "Best Buy reserves the right to deny any return or exchange."

There are cases where reserving the right to refuse service isn't enforceable.

You are incorrect. Minors can sign contracts. They can void the contract at any time, however, so most businesses refuse to deal with them.

Abstract ideas are concepts like pure mathematics and algorithms. You cannot patent a formula. However, you can patent an application of that formula. Thus, while you cannot patent a mathematical formula that produces nonrepeating patterns, you can patent paper products that use that formula to prevent rolls of paper from sticking together.

Source

Starting from the given "formula cannot be patented", there is no way to construct a non-contradictory soliloquy to the contrary. I understand what people do, and I understand that software is patentable, however the specific formula apart from its application cannot be patented.

It's a pretty crappy distinction that the law makes, but it is still there. Arguing things like "you can't copyright a number, but since every computer text can be converted into a number, and you can copyright that text, then you can therefore copyright a number." No. You copyright the text regardless of medium. The number that is equivalent to the text is not the text without a "decoding" process, and therefore is not equivalent to the text itself... unless that number is specifically representing the copyrighted next.

This whole post is equivalent in my coding scheme to the number 42, therefore, I have a copyright on the number 42? No, because people can use the number 42 without it representing this specific set of text.

They're razor thin distinctions yes, but they exist, and your argument is not going to change that.

They do spy on (sorry, gather 'click stream' data from) IE users (through IE itself, or one of its add-ons). Read those EULAs veeery carefully, folks!

Somehow this extremely relevant part of the story keeps getting skipped over whenever it's being told.

The 'click fraud' accusation is hilarious and quite arguably libelous as fraud (and click fraud) is a real criminal act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click_fraud
"Click fraud is a type of Internet crime that occurs in pay per click online advertising when a person, automated script or computer program imitates a legitimate user of a web browser clicking on an ad, for the purpose of generating a charge per click without having actual interest in the target of the ad's link. Click fraud is the subject of some controversy and increasing litigation due to the advertising networks being a key beneficiary of the fraud.

Use of a computer to commit this type of Internet fraud is a felony in many jurisdictions, for example, as covered by Penal code 502 in California, USA."
(also claimed to be a felony at http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/click-fraud.html with claims of arrests.)

It is a crime to purchase or accept property that you know or believe was obtained through theft . The crime is separate from robbery, extortion, or theft. Receiving stolen property is a crime in order to deter people from aiding or rewarding thieves by buying stolen property, and to deter theft in general. Receiving stolen property may be a misdemeanor or felony.

In Order to Be Convicted of this Crime, the Prosecution Must Show

        * That the property was in fact stolen
        * That you were aware, or should have known, that the property was stolen

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/receiving-stolen-property.html

Body scanners are optional, if you refuse, you get a pat-down search.
But some pat-dows may constitute sexual assault:
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/inappropriate-pat-down-searches-during-an-airport-security-screening.html
This may be a catch-22 for TSA :)

How can a legal-aged adult file as Jane Doe just because of her secret of being 'in the closet'?

Simple - the judge gets to decide if her privacy rights outweigh the public interest in keeping lawsuit information available to the public. for more information see: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/filing-a-lawsuit-anonymously.html

To me allowing a Jane Doe suit in such cases is not unreasonable; whether or not her name wil eventually become public is another matter.

Someone else posted a link. The right word was "business that serves the general public" from this and and this (posted by someone else above) seem to support that almost any reason is valid when it can be supported there was almost any business interest, but arbitrary discrimination isn't allowed. That doesn't mean it isn't done, but what business owner would just randomly not want to do business. I didn't mean to imply that a business owner has to sit someone down and explain the reason, maybe they just scream at the customer unintelligibly waving a broom. Just saying if it became a legal matter, the business owner has a burden to meet.

and as far as the last quote, would you mind finding me an example of a limited liability corporation with a business in a commercially zoned area that has successfully argued their right to free association, establishing any kind of precedence, anywhere in the United States?

I will totally agree that shopping centers are goofy, but to the best of my understanding, don't shopping centers most always have their own zoning with special rules and such that are agreements made between the mall business and the city.

You can charge people with being a nuisance or loitering, but places open to the public must be open to the public with very little exception. All those signs that say "We reserve the right to refuse service..." are popular, but not only are they not legally enforceable, but they are actually illegal. [...] You must be breaking the law for a business open to the general public to refuse to serve you. Of course, as mentioned above, breaking the law can include public nuisance, and loitering.

Wow. You are so wrong my brain is melting.

A business can legally refuse service to anyone, unless the reason is race, color, religion, national origin, or disability. More information here and here. Feel free to google some more.

In short, refusing service to a customer who is breaking the terms of service is perfectly legal.

"I had worked out a few rules in the past, they were aimed at our local market's problems. "

actually they should just treat it like receiving stolen property:
"In Order to Be Convicted of this Crime, the Prosecution Must Show

* That the property was in fact stolen
* That you were aware, or should have known, that the property was stolen

Consequences of Receiving Stolen Property
If you are found guilty of receiving stolen property, the court may do any or all of the following:

* Imprisonment
* Fines
* Probation"

think that'd clear up most of the issues with copper being stolen.

I think the problem comes in right at number one: Blizzard is not telling you that if you "earn" something in the game, they have to change their rules/policies to prevent you from ever losing it.

There is another legal doctrine (of contract) that states that if two people enter into a contract, one person only has one interpretation of the contract, and the other person knows of two interpretations and knows the other person only knows of the one interpretation, then the "shared" interpretation holds. In this case, if Blizzard knows one interpretation is "gold belongs to the player" and another is "gold is not the player's" and knows that a player thinks the gold belongs to him, then the prevailing interpretation of the contract is "gold belongs to the player."

Or maybe "gold belongs to the player until WoW gets shut down completely"?

In fact, I'm sure the EULA says the opposite: it's their game and you play by their rules. Even if no part of the EULA is enforceable, you can't accuse them of creating some expectation when they have attempted to give you the opposite expectation.

Which is precisely why I said "absent a license/contract provision" in my previous post. A EULA is an end user license agreement.

Disagree with me if you want. I'm not saying you're wrong. I don't even think I'm right. I'm just engaging in intellectual masturbation.

What is an Assault and Battery?: A battery is any physical contact with another person, to which that other person has not consented. An assault is basically an attempt at a battery.

Proving You Were Assaulted: Many times cases of assault turn on whether the threatened harm was "imminent," meaning how soon was the threatened thing supposed to happen. This is the difference between someone about to hit you now versus someone who says they will hit you tomorrow. The fear of an assault must also be "reasonable." This means that if you were threatened with a water gun and you knew it was a water gun it is probably not "reasonable" for you to fear it.

Proving You Were Battered: The battery must have been "intentional." This means that the person meant to throw something or meant to swing their arm. The harm does not have to be intended for the victim. Merely doing an intentional act is enough to commit a battery.

Minors can enter into contracts; however, they can exit or void most contracts while they remain under the age of maturity. http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/can- a-minor-contract.html

I used legalmatch.com recently when I needed a lawyer to help expunge an old issue but it turned out I had another year to wait- I wouldn't have minded if a respectable lawyer had contacted me about it when they knew I was ready to get it cleared- most people never get their record cleared and it can be a royal pain in the ass to have even the smallest offense held against you when you least expect it.

here tested it this time, sorry