Slashdot Mirror

Citizenship status is not a protected class.

Maybe on a federal level, but on the state level that is not always true:

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/new-york-employment-discrimination-31665.html/
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-employment-discrimination-31690.html/

as two examples.

Citizenship status is not a protected class.

Maybe on a federal level, but on the state level that is not always true:

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/new-york-employment-discrimination-31665.html/
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-employment-discrimination-31690.html/

as two examples.

The situation is symmetrical. In a free service, both sides have the same power. At any time, you are allowed to quit using the free service and sign up with a different service. There is nothing the service can do to prevent you from leaving. Likewise, at any time, the free service is allowed to quit offering the service under its original conditions, and re-offer it under different conditions. And there is nothing you can do to prevent this.

The only way to prevent this is to pay for the service for a period of time specified in a contract. Payment constitutes consideration - something given up in exchange for receiving something - and thus creates a binding contract. So if you agree to pay for it for a year (with penalties if you fail to pay), you can lock in the terms and conditions for the duration of your service contract. That's why when a cellular carrier changes their terms and conditions, it releases you from any multi-year contract you may have signed up for. Most carriers instead opt to "grandfather" you in under the old terms and conditions for the duration of your contract to avoid this.

Without consideration, there is no contract, and neither side is obligated to maintain the original agreement terms in perpetuity. (Be careful of this if you let your apartment rent switch to month-to-month. That can be advantageous if you plan to move out in a few months. But if you're planning to stay, it means the landlord can kick you out and replace you with a different tenant. If you wish to stay for a long time, it is in your best interests to negotiate a year-long or multi-year lease.)

"Arrest is detaining you until the situation is clear"

Maybe it's different in the UK, but arrest != detain in the US...
https://www.nolo.com/legal-enc...

If it goes to court and they win, then the judge adds in legal fees.

More often than not this does NOT happen. Both sides pay their own legal fees.

The rare exceptions are usually when the judge thinks the case is frivolous (plaintiff pays defendants fees) or slam-dunk (defendant pays plaintiff fees).

Does the losing side have to pay?

Asylum seekers immediately receive:

" -provide cash, housing, and/or living-expenses assistance
          -help you apply for government benefits and services (such as an Social Security card, refugee travel document, health care, and food stamps)
          -enroll you in English as a Second Language (ESL) classes
          -offer job-training classes, counseling, and job placement services, and
          -provide you with psychological counseling."
https://www.nolo.com/legal-enc...

$2500/mo in cash, food stamps and housing allowances. That's more than poor citizens get.

You can't (normally) evict someone that isn't party to a lease agreement.

What? Who told you that? And why did you believe them, after all the other nonsense they almost certainly have told you? Are you just soaking it all up and regurgitating it? You should carefully check over everything that person has ever told you, I assure you that more of it is wrong.

It's actually more about the seriousness of the crime, not necessarily that it was a crime. I'm general, so long as the jail sentence is 6 months or less, and/or a fine is $1,000 or less. This applies universally, but some states grant jury trials for less than that.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-enc...

https://www.nolo.com/legal-enc...

No.

Because that example would reveal that the lawsuits are successful

> Whatever else the guy is, he is monumentally stupid for expressing a forbidden opinion inside the company. I'd fire him as well, for doing something so damn stupid.

Should consult with the lawyers first before you do such things. In addition to the NLRB complaints, he might have a California state law claim because they prohibit discrimination based on political activities or affiliations.

> However, as much as you might use the dogwhistle of "free speech," this has nothing to do with it; Google is not the government

Funny thing about that, but California's free speech protections go beyond just the First Amendment. Damore may have a state law claim under California's laws that prohibits discrimination based on political activities or affiliations. I think he would have to raise that claim in California's courts, rather than the NLRB, however, so I'm not clear that it will ever get heard.

So there is a free speech angle here, though I can imagine that many of the courts in CA might be hostile to his claims.

No this is not true (again)
https://www.nolo.com/legal-enc...
Bankruptcies are taken into account when you apply for a security clearance but are not automatic disqualifiers.

Depends on what you mean by 'forced'...

https://www.nolo.com/legal-enc...

Sadly, there aren't a lot of good guides that go into how it works that aren't overly technical. That said, I think that this info on search warrants covers the basics pretty well. As far as different justice systems go, I think, this article should be pretty readable.

To get a any sense of how things normally work, you pretty much have to read a lot of cases. That's harder these days because most news stories don't bother to link to whatever they're discussing, but I will give credit to this submission for linking to a proper source, at least.

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.

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.

In the cases you mentioned would the outcomes have been different if the offending speech were circulated internally and not on a public domain?

That's a good question, and in some cases the question of whether or not he used company resources would be extremely important.

A case on that topic would likely revolve around whether Google disallows personal use of the company resource (in this case, I believe it's their internal Google+ system). Google can say, "Only work related things on internal Google+" or "Only work related things on company email." Once they allow personal things however, it is a lot harder for them to censor things they don't like. See this for one example.

A good portion of the manifesto is criticizing workplace policies, which is allowed. I expect a major question of the lawsuit to be whether the parts that were harassing women were separate from the critiques of workplace policies. (Other potential areas of dispute are whether he was actually critiquing work-place policies, and whether he was actually harassing women. Google might also have to address whether they followed standard policy in firing him instead of giving him a warning).

If he takes them to court and can prove that his statements are scientifically backed at the statistical scale, they they aren't stereotypes and it would be wrongful termination right?

Said no court ever. I don't see "I"m right and you're wrong" on the list of reasons why an at-will employer cannot fire an employee who decides, unprompted, to openly criticize the employer's policies and, oh by the way, serve up a juicy bit of fodder to the Department of Labor investigation of the employer's treatment of women and minorities.

The crickets from the libertarian "I can run my business any damn way I want to" crowd are deafening...

Consideration does not have to be monetary. In this case, the consideration provided by the site is the content (IANAL, but this is basic stuff).

I have to wonder what probable cause to search the vehicle came to his attention after towing it from the orginal scene. Did he have a warrant? It wasn't in any sort of moment.

That's already been through the courts. They can search your car if they impound it. http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/can-the-police-legitimately-search-my-vehicle-without-a-warrant.html

I suggest bigger cuts to the Office of Science budget. Why do we need to spend money developing better, faster supercomputers? We can let the Chinese do all the expensive R&D, then we can buy the finished product from them. No problem. It worked for drywall, why not quantum puters?

Mr. Wadhaw apparently doesn't understand that premium processing does not buy you a visa, or increase your chances of getting one.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...

In several states, political affiliation is a protected classification you cannot discriminate based on; California, for example, is one of them (see http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...)

The federal Fair Housing Acts apply to all aspects of the landlord-tenant relationship. A landlord may not: advertise or make any statement that indicates a limitation or preference based on race, religion, or any other protected category... https://www.nolo.com/legal-enc...

Unless they're selling it as a subscription service, I really doubt that line in the TOS would hold up in court. For a contract to be legally valid, there has to be an exchange of consideration - you have to get something for the money you paid. Putting a line in the contract which allows them to unilaterally revoke everything you paid for nullifies that consideration, essentially invalidating the contract. They'd have to give you your money back to enforce that clause.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...

It's a State directive, but it seems like most do allow time off work in order to vote.

if people start getting blackballed, hired or fired for having expressed mere support for X political party or Y viewpoint.

What do you mean, start getting blackballed? Too young to remember the wholesale blackballing of actors because of their supposed views?

This doesn't even begin to touch the surface of the obvious and hidden blacklisting which goes on every day. Numerous studies have shown your name alone can get you blacklisted from a job.

States have had to pass laws to prevent all kinds of people and groups from blacklisting people for whatever reason.

Quitting means you're less likely to get unemployment.

To collect unemployment benefits, employees must be out of work through no fault of their own. Workers who lose their jobs in a layoff are clearly eligible for benefits, as are most employees who are fired for reasons other than serious misconduct. [...]

Even employees who quit their jobs may be able to collect unemployment, but that depends on their reasons for leaving. In every state, an employee who voluntarily quits a job without good cause is not eligible for unemployment. But state laws vary as to how they define "good cause."

Even if you think you had a good reason to leave a job, that doesn't necessarily mean you had good cause in the eyes of the law.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...

Doesn't look like Marissa and term understand the concept of material disclosure in contract law.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...

Excerpt:

Misrepresentation
If fraud or misrepresentation occurred during the negotiation process, any resulting contract will probably be held unenforceable. The idea here is to encourage honest, good faith bargaining and transactions. Misrepresentations commonly occur when a party says something false (telling a potential buyer that a house is termite-free when it is not) or, in some other way, conceals or misrepresents a state of affairs (concealing evidence of structural damage in a house's foundation with paint or a particular placement of furniture).

Nondisclosure
Nondisclosure is essentially misrepresentation through silence -- when someone neglects to disclose an important fact about the deal. Courts look at various issues to decide whether a party had a duty to disclose the information, but courts will also consider whether the other party could or should have easily been able to access the same information. It should be noted that parties have a duty to disclose only material facts. But if Party A specifically asks Party B about a fact (material or non-material), then Party B has a duty to disclose the truth.

A more extensive discussion of the topic:
http://scholarship.law.berkele...

Of course next time you book wirh Airbnb and the "palace with ocean view" turns out to be a shithole and the hosts asks for an extra $200 cash

If this ever actually happened, you'd have included a link... But, hey, it could — and the "real" hotel you booked may also disappoint and overcharge. No obvious differences on this front — except it is easier for you to warn others via Yelp, AirBNB's feedback and similar channels, than trying to complain to a local government official.

There's been great success stories with deregulation and the free market, such as energy (Enron), investment banking (Lehman Brothers and others), airlines and more.

The cases you are alluding to have nothing to do with the actual deregulation itself.

All big wins for customers - except of course all those people who lost their 401(k)

Putting all of your retirement money into one stock is stupid. No one else has suffered a loss of their 401(k).

or who had to pay obscene power bills

California screwed up privatization. This does not mean, the goal itself was wrong.

wait for hours in suffocating planes parked on the runways

This happens because of government regulations. The planes can not easily return to the gate — often due to "arcane regulations". It is happening now — you aren't showing, how deregulation would make it worse.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...

Federal laws do not always apply unless there is federal jurisdiction.

Any party who is harmed can potentially file a Lanham Act Opposition

The problem is, You probably have to appear in person, or pay somebody to appear in person.

Because the next step after filing opposition is a Proceeding at USPTO to resolve the Dispute between parties

I don't know about you..... but for me travelling all the way to the USPTO in Washington D.C. would be quite a hardship.

Not to mention all the time I couldn't be working in my job or working on improving my business or service.......

Sure we do - at least here in the US. Not sure about the EU. Unlike your personal property, nearly all business property (essentially anything used to conduct business) is taxed based on its appraised value. Why do you think businesses care so much about depreciation schedules, etc?

Note: I'm not defending this plan - just pointing out that bulldozers and drills *are* actually taxed.

I don't know why you think that. Characters can be copyrighted, for explanation see here or here

And you can challenge asset forfeiture

No, actually, you can not — the laws allowing the forfeiture do not require police to prove anything. For example:

Air Force veteran had $63,530 seized after he was pulled over for changing lanes without signaling. After a drug sniffing canine “alerted” to possible narcotics, a sheriff’s deputy conducted a search and found the cash, but no drugs.

Brewer told the officer he was on his way to Los Angeles where he intended to make a down payment on a house, but the deputy seized the money anyway. Brewer took his fight to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that circumstantial evidence, like the fact the money was being carried in a plastic bag near two magazines with marijuana-themed articles, was sufficient to tie the money to criminal activity. Brewer never saw his $63,530 again.

See? If the officer's suspicion was reasonable, the forfeiture will stand, even if no actual crime has ever been proven... This is far worse than a bogus warrant, because it allows literal robbery of completely innocent people, whereas with a warrant — justified or not — police still have to find evidence of a crime.

You were "just following orders!!!!"

Huh?

The issue here, is one of Fair Housing Laws. Can't speak to .uk. but in the US:

The Federal Fair Housing Acts (42 U.S. Code 3601-3619) prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, age, familial status (having children), and physical or mental disability (including alcoholism and past drug addiction). In addition, many states and cities also prohibit discrimination based on marital status, gender identity, and sexual orientation.

A landlord may reject you for poor credit history, income that a reasonable businessperson would deem insufficient to pay the rent, negative references from a previous landlord or employer, a criminal conviction, or a prior eviction lawsuit (even one that you won). As long as they don’t discriminate, landlords can basically choose whomever they want. For example, a landlord can refuse to rent to smokers or disallow pets because smokers (and pet owners) as a group are not protected by antidiscrimination laws. If your landlord’s policy is no pets, no smoking, or some other legitimate lease or rental agreement term, you’re out of luck unless you can make some convincing arguments for your case.

The problem with Cloud is you're selling the customer the _potential_ to use a service in the future usually. Knowing when to book that as an actual sale seems to be hard with this model.

Erm.. this is the basis for accrual accounting. Quoting from nolo, we see:

Under the accrual method, transactions are counted when the order is made, the item is delivered, or the services occur, regardless of when the money for them (receivables) is actually received or paid. In other words, income is counted when the sale occurs, and expenses are counted when you receive the goods or services. You don't have to wait until you see the money, or actually pay money out of your checking account, to record a transaction

It's pretty straightforward. Think of it like a gift card. The customer buys a gift card from Oracle, who then books the accrued income. As the customer uses the services, Oracle sends the customer a monthly invoice and deducts the invoice amount from the gift card. At this point, we can count the income.

What seems to have happened here is that Oracle looked for a way to fudge the figures. They figured that ErichTheRed was probably going to buy a couple of million in Oracle gift cards and booked that. Once on the books, it's simply a matter of choosing the right language so that the actual revenue is never mentioned but the projected accrued revenue magically becomes the number released. Then up goes the stock price, people cash out, and when the accrued revenue fails to materialize the excuse is that it was a projected amount, that the market changed, customers didn't follow through etc etc.

I mean, I can project my monthly income will rise in three months by several thousand dollars, can't I? It's hardly my fault if the company sees a dip and can't follow through on what they projected, which in turn hits my projections. And nobody was actually hurt in all of this, were they?

It's more like comparing Apples to Tardigrades.

Tardigrades are freaking awesome! Kinda cute, and serious hardcore, can survive space conditions.

Now back to our regular story.

Seems simple give him his money back, in the exact same manner as lemon law returns from every vehicle manufacturer.

There are 150,000 cares ever year that are lemons http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...

So what kind of idiot thinks that there will not be even 1 Tesla and that it is such a tragedy that it is front page news on Slashdot.

According to Nolo, it means exactly what I think it means.

http://www.nolo.com/dictionary...

In the context of a "reasonable jury", it would relate to a jury that is ordinary, rational, or appropriate.

The no true scottsman appellation stands: Oracle is straight up saying that a jury that fails to see things its way is not an ordinary, rational, or appropriate jury.

The assertion that there is a specific meaning to the phrase "reasonable jury" outside of this more generic use of the legal definition of the word "reasonable" does not seem to bear fruit. I have searched many different online legal dictionaries for the term, and come up empty. If there is such a specific use of the art, I would be glad to have it defined for me.

As best I can interpret, Oracle is stating that because Google's use is clearly commercial in nature, that the use cannot be a fair use, and takes this as a presupposition for its subsequent intent in the statement-- that no reasonable jury (as in, one that is aware of what constitutes fair use, and uses reason) would conclude that Google's use falls under that category.

It is a no true scottsman, because of this presupposition-- It begs the question.

To counter this line of argument that Oracle is employing, let us instead consider what an API is, and what role it plays in communication.

An API is a specification. Essentially, it is a codified set of definitions for terms, and methods of employment that are permitted within a system of communication. It is roughly analogous to a lexicon for a given written or verbal language.
EG-- a dictionary.

With this in mind, we can point out the fallacy of Oracle's statement, by replacing a few words.

"No reasonable jury could find that Googleâ(TM)s verbatim and entirely commercial use of the dictionary and stated grammar to compete against our written works was a fair use."

Basically, Oracle is presupposing that it owns a language, so any use of that language's lexicon and grammar is theirs to control-- and assert that they get this power through copyright.

Copyright provides restrictions on reproduction and use of fixed media (be it written words, moving pictures, photographs, or audio recordings--)-- it does not cover subject matter. EG, if I paint a nice still-life of some daisies, I don't get to claim ownership over the concept of painting still lifes of daisies. Only over the reproduction of my specific image of daisies.

The court demonstrated that the API documents created by Oracle can be copyrighted-- They can control the dissemination and distribution of those documents, and only those documents. They do not hold any authority over the concepts expressed in the documents. EG-- they don't own the rights to all pictures of daisies-- even if they invented daisies.

One could claim that the VM Google uses (whatever it is called these days) is a derivative work of the Java virtual machine. This is a tricky area legally-- Copyright is not the appropriate vehicle for this kind of intellectual property. (Patents are the appropriate vehicle.) The API documents describe the language and behavior used by the java virtual machine. Google has created a different virtual machine that uses the same language.

At best, the case Oracle can make here is that google copied, verbatim, their dictionary instead of writing their own. The problem, as demonstrated in court, is that there can only be one definition, and the definition given is absolutely precise, as required for a computer language. There are no other ways to rephrase or rewrite the dictionary to make it into a new literary work referencing the same language.

Again, the copyright is over the documents, not the language.

This is why the jury found the use to be a non-infringing, fair use.

An outcome that Oracle insists cannot happen, because "reasons", and that any jury that finds otherwise is not reasonable-- Nevermind that the way they reached the verdict was through application of reason and fairness.

No True Scottsman confirmed.

The wealthy feds run a better, more controlled, outfit than your average budget stricken State-funded penitentiary; although in the US they've pretty much done away with parole, so there's no early out like in an overcrowded State system.

Our legal system says outright that past criminal activity is not reasonable suspicion that further criminal activity is afoot.

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH

That is why prior convictions and their circumstances are inadmissible in a criminal trial.

They affect whether you're even likely to appear in court. They will bias the proceedings even if not admissible. And by the way, you're also wrong. Nice try, though.

Or nonbinding arbitration.

It literally takes dozens of contracts to give you anything similar to what you automatically get with marriage, some can't be duplicated, like tax advantages and such. At the bare minimum, you need a will, a power-of-attorney, a medical POA, and some changes to your retirement and insurance benefits. It would be nice if there was a legal way to make all these changes and more with a single set of documents (marriage / divorce).

I left this above, buy you might need to read it twice: http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...

Being arrested requires that charges be filed. Ahmed was not arrested and not charged with any crimes, he was detained. Your twenty minutes is plucked out of the air and meaningless. Twenty minutes for a vehicle stop? Okay. Twenty minutes for charges relating to weapons or drugs? No way is that twenty minutes. The legal limit varies, but 24 hours is generally the limit that you can be detained without having charges filed (at which point you are arrested).

Ahmed was hauled off and _DETAINED_ for a reason. YOU may not agree with the reasoning, but that does not mean there was no basis. How people keep modding this lie up when law dictionaries are pretty easy to find is astounding (https://www.law.cornell.edu/). Well, not really.. it suits a narrative.

about those law dictionaries so easy to find, which you do not actually cite...
"An arrest occurs when the police take someone into custody. People are in custody when they aren’t free to leave, whether or not the police take them to the police station or jail, use handcuffs, or even announce that an arrest has occurred. The question is whether the police control the suspect’s movement.
Level of Restraint
The use of force—for example, grabbing and handcuffing—is a common way to complete an arrest." http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...
is this some kind of rightwing thing? they're always citing something without actually giving an actual citation.

Purely on a factual level, yes he was arrested

Actually, he was *NOT* arrested. He was detained.

"An arrest, on the other hand, involves the police taking someone into custody through a more significant restraint on movement. The quintessential example involves the use of handcuffs and an advisement that the suspect is under arrest."
http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPAFMKrUkAABI2a.jpg
his movements do seem significantly restrained, by what appear to be handcuffs presumably associated with the police officer in the background

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.