Slashdot Mirror

Here's one data point - based on from experience migrating a pretty big system from [a major proprietary database mentioned in the article] to Postgres, I think the two biggest advantages Postgres has are:

GIST and GIN indexes (and soon BRIN indexes), and

Writeable CTEs.

We migrated a very busy, pretty large (24 CPU core, 256GB RAM, 20TB disk space) system from [a major proprietary database mentioned in the article] to Postgres about a year ago. These graphs measuring CPU and disk activity provide a nice visualization of the improvement:

http://imgur.com/a/bp2ky

Note that with [a major proprietary database mentioned in the article], all 24 CPU cores in the system were over 40% utilized (and growing) 24x7 most days a year. After a pretty naive port (November to May in the graph) the CPU load fell to an average of about 10%, and the disk array's queue length fell from painful to near zero. After adding some Postgres-specific code, we got it down to an average of near 5% (shown in the most recent month in the graph).

CPU differences seem to have been mostly related to the availability of GIN indexes in Postgres, which can be much more efficient on certain types of data (like the OpenStreetMap road network).

Disk I/O improvements seems to be mostly related to Postgres's far more compact storage of XML data. Seems SQL Server stores XML data using 2-bytes-per-character for the data itself; and on top of that adds extremely large indexes. In contrast, the "toast" feature in Postgres means the XML data takes an average of less than one byte per character for the data and its "functional index" feature allowed for far more compact indexes. One of our XML-heavy databases went from over 600GB in SQL Server down to 140GB in Postgres, with more efficient indexes.

For a few months we tried to stay database-agnostic so it'd be easy to port back if we needed to -- but after a while we started adding Postgres specific changes. The benefits of those Postgres specific changes can be seen near the end of those graphs. An enormous improvement occurred when we changed the inserts and updates to use the Writable CTE features following recommendations someone outlined here

.

In the end, Postgres looks to me like it's saving us like 5X in hardware costs as we continue to grow.

Edit: I'm told this proprietary database vendor dislikes users publishing benchmark results comparing their software to F/OSS databases. I'd argue that this is more of an anecdote than a benchmark; but just in case I edited the comment to remove the vendor and product name from the parts that talk about performance.

Disclaimer: As mentioned in a comment below, we tried to tune each the systems to the best of our team's abilities, but aren't really experts in tuning either database system. No doubt each system's results could be improved by people who were deeply available with each databases internals (which I argue is much easier to find for Postgres, since its mailing lists have thousands of people familiar with the internal code).

In Pennsylvania, the vehicle code (Title 75, 3368), you can not be cited for speeding less that 6 miles per hour when the posted limit is less than 55 miles per hour, and over 55, you have to be going 10 miles an hour or over. I'm pretty sure this is what it is all about.

How the fuck is something like this insightful?! Every single line is full of bullshit, by someone who clearly have no idea how things work, and is just getting talking lines from somewhere.

If it was funded by the University, you can bet your ass the University will get is share.

For example, Google's famous PageRank patent is owned by Stanford:
http://contracts.onecle.com/google/stanford.lic.2003.10.13.shtml
http://www.clickonf5.org/10824/google-pagerank-license-expire-2011/

Fucking moron moderators as well. Insightful my ass. You whole lot should be the ones locked up for sprouting lies on the Internet.

You should read the law about what is assault. Following someone is NOT assault, even the police officer who was a witness for the prosecution admitted as much.

Look at section a(5) of the Texas Law. A school would probably fall in that category.

1. That's just not true. The courts have repeatedly ruled that there are in fact limits to the 1st ammendment. There's a nice long wikipedia page on the subject for you to peruse if you don't belive me.
2. ITAR isn't (supposed to be) a regulation of speech, but rather a regulation of international commerce. The US government most certianly does have the right to do that (although I suppose you could try to argue that an export prohibition amounts to an export tarrif, which would be unconstitutional. I doubt it would fly, but you could try)

In California, she could have been in the same situation with Dry Ice and a 2 liter cola bottle. (No joke: http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/16460.html )

Wow you just can't help being obstinate in your ignorance, can you? You could try doing a little research to see if maybe you're wrong before you keep embarrassing yourself with loudly proclaiming your ignorance.

Prove it. Provide for me a hate crime that stands alone in the penal code.

You could have found it yourself, and I don't know why I'm bothering to keep making an effort to educate you. Quick Googling found this one in Alabama, and this one in California.

Wow you just can't help being obstinate in your ignorance, can you? You could try doing a little research to see if maybe you're wrong before you keep embarrassing yourself with loudly proclaiming your ignorance.

Prove it. Provide for me a hate crime that stands alone in the penal code.

You could have found it yourself, and I don't know why I'm bothering to keep making an effort to educate you. Quick Googling found this one in Alabama, and this one in California.

More on Texas you seemed to have mysteriously overlooked:
Rampant entrenched homophobia
http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/21.06.00.html

4th highest crime rate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

Taxes:
Do you known the different between Ca. Taxes and Texas actual tax rates? 1.3%. whoopee save 1.3% and have substantial lower dynamic atmosphere, economy, and services.

Population:
The people moving out of the state are wealthier than those moving in.

Health:
The most polluting state.

Science denialism through out the culture.
AGW and Evolution is frowned upon.

religion:
They constantly force others to have to deal with christian beliefs, while having their own ignored.

Education:
Ranked last in the nation.

By every metric living in Texas is worse then pretty much every where else.
hee-fucking-haw.

Not, on to the bill at hand.

yes, it's a example on how Texas will create do nothing bills to make themselves look good, and an example of how Texans can't actually read a bill.
"—Notwithstanding any other
5 provision of this chapter, it shall not be unlawful for an
6 officer, employee, or agent of the United States in the nor-
7 mal course of the official duty of the officer, employee,
8 or agent to conduct electronic surveillance, as authorized
9 by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50
10 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.)."

SO it doesn't nothing for anyone who may fall under those broad terms..but wait, there is more:

"IN GENERAL.—It shall not be unlawful
13 under this chapter for a governmental entity to
14 intercept, use, or disclose geolocation information
15 pertaining to an individual if that individual has
16 given prior consent to that governmental entity for
17 such interception, use or disclosure. "

SO anyone pressured into giving consents
and:
"CHILDREN.—A parent or legal guardian of
19 a child may consent on behalf of a child for the pur-
20 poses of paragraph "
I will assume that by children, they mean minors. But any law enforcement agency can pressure consent.

"It shall
22 not be unlawful under this chapter for a governmental en-
23 tity to intercept or access geolocation information per-
24 taining to an individual through any system that is config
1 ured so that such information is readily accessible to the
2 general public"
SO if it's in the open, they can intercept it.
AND this is farther down, the section is lengthy so I didn't want to post it.
"‘‘(II) conspiratorial activities
11 threatening the national security in-
12 terest; or"...
"‘‘(ii) requires geolocation information
16 be intercepted or used before an order au-
17 thorizing such interception or use can, with
18 due diligence, be obtained;"

AND
"EXCEPTIONS.—A person providing covered serv-
24 ices may disclose geolocation information—"

Yeah, your a shining example of how Texas blindly go along with anything that as the word Texas on it, well done.

Relevvant links
http://lofgren.house.gov/images/stories/pdf/online%20communications%20and%20geolocation%20protection%20act%20-%20lofgren%20-%20030413.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act

http://law.onecle.com/constitution/ Includes case law to 2010, instead of just 2002.

Consumers in ten states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Oklahoma, Texas) won't be affected, since laws in those states forbid the practice

California law prohibits adding a surcharge for credit cards, but allows a discount for cash: California Civil Code Section 1748.1. So while consumers in California may not be affected by the change in national law, they're already subject to the possibility of a higher price when using a credit card - and unlike states that will now allow surcharging, California receipts do not break out the difference in price as a separate charge.

Auto dealer franchise laws reflect a long history of auto manufacturers screwing dealers. Auto dealers were traditionally small businesses with one supplier, which put them firmly under the thumb of the manufacturer. Many dealers still are, although some are big mufti-manufacturer chains.

After looking at the New York and Massachusetts laws, it's not clear that they prohibit a manufacturer from selling entirely through their own stores. What the laws clearly prohibit is a manufacturer competing with its own dealers. If a manufacturer doesn't have any independent dealers, the law probably doesn't apply. The dealers are trying to stretch the law by arguing that the manufacturer is unfairly competing with their dealership, but that may not work.

California prohibits a manufacturer from opening a company store within 10 miles of a dealer, so Tesla has no problem there.

The sad thing is, it passed by a bigger margin than a proposition whose sole argument against and rebuttal to the argument for was "we are no longer asking for a NO vote".

Yet one more piece of evidence that the California electorate, by and large, is both ignorant and stupid. Clearly those who voted "Yes" didn't even bother to read the summary of the proposition in the election guide, never mind the full text of the proposition (PDF) or Section 236.1 of the California Penal Code to determine whether or not the proposed amendments are even necessary. This really is classic California: people too lazy, ignorant and stupid to be bothered with attending to their duties as citizens. Meanwhile, they whine for more entitlements, complain that companies are "cheating" them and blame everyone but themselves for their own situations. It's depressing, but not surprising.

New York Penal - Article 125 - 125.15 Manslaughter in the Second Degree

  125.15 Manslaughter in the second degree.
        A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when:
        1. He recklessly causes the death of another person

ref

I mention NY because there's a bunch of busy airports with lots of fat, juicy laser targets in holding or on approach/final.

And yeah, I'm fine with very publically charging a couple of little pricks waving green lasers at aircraft with 150-500 counts of Attempted 2nd Degree Manslaughter; maybe make the punishment a $10 fine per charge in this case but make good goddamn sure they carry every count around on their record. Three. Hundred. Felony. Convictions. Yep, utterly obliterate their lives and make fucking sure the entire world knows it ain't worth it - with shit like the Wicked Lasers Arctic 1.25W blue laser available, it's only a matter of time until some fucktard with $400 to blow decides to shine one of THOSE at a Heavy on final into JFK (over Queens). I don't care if s/he just thinks "it would be funny", strict liability. Light a plane = intent to kill every soul onboard.

Or the harder crims start using them as AAA against police choppers..that one should be punishable by summary execution, maybe rig up a Hellfire to ride the beam..

Nice strawman. Murder or attempted murder requires mens rea. Most people who do this are not trying to kill anyone. They're just being idiots.

Reckless endangerment, sure. Attempted murder? Good luck getting that to stick. You'd be laughed out of court.

Well, at least in California, the malice required can be implied by reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"):

(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
[ Snip some abortion boilerplate ]
Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.

The Supreme Court of California explained it thus People v. Thomas, 41 Cal. 2d 470 - Cal: Supreme Court 1953

That is shown when, as here, the defendant for a base, antisocial motive and with wanton disregard for human life, does an act that involves a high degree of probability that it will result in death. By his own admissions defendant's conduct demonstrates that he was not averse to endangering life for the sake of the sexual pleasure it gave him. Only a person with an "abandoned and malignant heart" could value the attainment of that pleasure more highly than human life.

So let's say you're illegally protesting (without a permit, disturbing bystanders, not disbursing..etc) and you get cuffed by the cops.

What's the increase in penalties vs. just staying cuffed? ... a bit of research later...

Seems that you can spend up to a year in jail for what is now a misdemeanor, as opposed to getting a ticket for the infraction.

http://agiza-windows-systems.blogspot.com/
An invitation to visit site

So let's say you're illegally protesting (without a permit, disturbing bystanders, not disbursing..etc) and you get cuffed by the cops.

What's the increase in penalties vs. just staying cuffed? ... a bit of research later...

Seems that you can spend up to a year in jail for what is now a misdemeanor, as opposed to getting a ticket for the infraction.

Don't fly to Florida with that key in your pocket

http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/843.021.html

Could be construed as "Unlawful possession of a concealed handcuff key"

A homeless man was picked up with a handcuff key on a necklace and charged under that law.

"including, but not limited to" is pretty broad

Code can only be created by intellectuals, like /. readers; therefore, it is Intellectual Property, not some ho-hum, run-of-the-mill property...

Seems like your attempt at snark was almost as successful as your spelling in the title.

But, perhaps by accident you've hit the nail on the head. This should have been charged with a copyright or trade secrets violation, or some security breach, not theft of property. Most states have laws covering criminal use of computers, as does the federal government. There was never a need to base these charges on the theft statutes.

In California (by way of example) there are specific laws concerning taking information from a computer in an unauthorized way. (Penal Code Section 499c 2.)

But the bigger question is how many others have been charged with simple Property Theft under federal law in the past for this same sort of breach (downloading source code) and paid the penalty or served the time?

To what extent does this change the landscape for computer break-ins?

Probably not many (given that the same ruling would have occurred before.) It was a stupid blunder to have prosecuted this as property theft since (as you pointed out correctly) there are effectives laws for this type of crime already.

Code can only be created by intellectuals, like /. readers; therefore, it is Intellectual Property, not some ho-hum, run-of-the-mill property...

Seems like your attempt at snark was almost as successful as your spelling in the title.

But, perhaps by accident you've hit the nail on the head. This should have been charged with a copyright or trade secrets violation, or some security breach, not theft of property. Most states have laws covering criminal use of computers, as does the federal government. There was never a need to base these charges on the theft statutes.

In California (by way of example) there are specific laws concerning taking information from a computer in an unauthorized way. (Penal Code Section 499c 2.)

But the bigger question is how many others have been charged with simple Property Theft under federal law in the past for this same sort of breach (downloading source code) and paid the penalty or served the time?

To what extent does this change the landscape for computer break-ins?

I was about to argue, but now that I actually went and looked up the details, it looks like you're correct, at least for Florida. In Florida the laws are ambiguous enough that, just as you said, an arrest does not need to be taking place in order for a person to be charged with "resisting without violence", which seems to have been the charge here. There also appears to be past precedent for this sort of thing happening.

The full law on the books is as follows:

843.02 Resisting officer without violence to his or her person.

Whoever shall resist, obstruct, or oppose any officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9); member of the Parole Commission or any administrative aide or supervisor employed by the commission; county probation officer; parole and probation supervisor; personnel or representative of the Department of Law Enforcement; or other person legally authorized to execute process in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, without offering or doing violence to the person of the officer, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

That said, it's still predicated on two ideas:
1) That the officer was executing a lawful action
2) That the person resisted the officer

From what the article indicated, the video that he's recovered backs up his claim that he was not resisting them. And regarding #1, there have been questions about the legality of the officer's actions in dispersing the crowd there due to various jurisdictional and rights issues. If their actions were not shown to be lawful, or the journalist wasn't resisting them, the charge of resisting shouldn't stand.

That said, I now do agree with your stance that, at least in Florida, a person could be charged with resisting without being arrested on another charge. That said, I still disagree with your example of a person fleeing from a stop, since they could be arrested otherwise.

Just so you know, the intent of bias intimidation laws are to give the ability to prosecute for crimes that a perpetrator applies to a large group of people on top of the crime committed. For example, if you place a burning cross in your neighbor's yard, it's a slight charge of destruction of private property which is nothing more than a fine. Bias intimidation is for the fact that the burning cross was meant to intimidate and harm a whole group of people, on top of the slight property harm.

Bias intimidation laws, or hate crimes, are now incorrectly thought to be "any crime against a minority are even worse than a regular crime". That is not the intent. If it is used in such a way it is incorrect.

I don't know about where you live, but where I live burning a cross on someone's yard is a felony, we call it arson.

• (d) Reckless burning or exploding.--A person commits a
            felony of the third degree if he intentionally starts a fire or
            causes an explosion, or if he aids, counsels, pays or agrees to
            pay another to cause a fire or explosion, whether on his own
            property or on that of another, and thereby recklessly:
                          (1) places an uninhabited building or unoccupied
                  structure of another in danger of damage or destruction; or
                          (2) places any personal property of another having a
                  value that exceeds $5,000 or if the property is an
                  automobile, airplane, motorcycle, motorboat or other motor-
                  propelled vehicle in danger of damage or destruction.

Burn a cross on the wrong yard in this state and you find yourself in serious danger of getting shot by the homeowner.

LK

Actually, in Texas you can. Texas Penal Code - Section 9.42. Deadly Force To Protect Property

You'd better watch out... and never mind that 'goddamn piece of paper'. Article 1 Section 8 gives them the power to do what they want

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;...

...To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;..."

The DoI was DOA since the beginning.

While businesses loudly proclaim their names and logos, their street numbers are often barely visible if present at all.

That's true, and annoying. Some cities require street address signs but most don't.

It is saying that if you make more than $X then you are exempt from overtime, regardless of the nature of your job..

Assuming the nature of your job is IT as it describes. This change excludes this categories of employees from certain protections otherwise mandate by the FLSA (specifically http://law.onecle.com/uscode/29/206.html and http://law.onecle.com/uscode/29/207.html). It doesn't mean you automatically won't be allowed to work overtime, or that they can even force you to work overtime for free.

It is saying that if you make more than $X then you are exempt from overtime, regardless of the nature of your job..

Assuming the nature of your job is IT as it describes. This change excludes this categories of employees from certain protections otherwise mandate by the FLSA (specifically http://law.onecle.com/uscode/29/206.html and http://law.onecle.com/uscode/29/207.html). It doesn't mean you automatically won't be allowed to work overtime, or that they can even force you to work overtime for free.

And they regularly don't comply with the minimum speed limit regulations creating an unsafe situation for everybody involved when people have to drive along at a crawl and figure out how to pass.

In my state (PA - well, commonwealth), we only have a speed limit except on some highways. True, no "motor vehicle" is allowed to "impede" traffic, but that is a very ambiguous, and certainly does not apply to non-motorized bicycles.

The polite thing for a bicycle rider to do is pull over to the side when safe so that the backed up traffic can pass. You can't expect this of them when there is no shoulder, though - I'm afraid you just have to be patient for a while. This can be very trying on a upward slope when you are late for work, but really your fat ass should be on that bike anyway :) I'd love to bike to work, but I judge it too dangerous. The frustrating thing is that there are bike paths here, but they are not connected in any useful way. That and, while the 10 miles takes about 15 minutes in my car, it would take closer to an hour by bike when you factor in the shower I'd need at work. Since I'm paid hourly, that makes the bike ride very expensive - something close to all the gas I use every month paid for in a single day of driving.

You do realize that the first amendment has no qualifiers such as "as long as you never inconvenience anyone", right.

As with most things, it isn't quite that clear cut.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

We'll assume that the 14th amendment makes this apply equally to states/municipalities. Now the question is, does making any law whatsoever regulating assembly abridge the right of people to peaceably assemble? I think it must be clear that some laws are ok. As the extreme example, it would not be ok for people to assemble on private property (and I mean actual legitimate private property, not quasi public property, like the parks in question here). Barring people from trespassing on your land, even if they are doing so to protest is ok. This is because trespassing isn't necessary in order to assemble.

Taking this idea further, as long as people have the ability to assemble then laws regulating that assembly are ok. I could see an issue with forcing people to some distant location, as the distance and remote location could be seen as a barrier to assembly. That doesn't seem to be the case here though. While the cities are trying to force people out of specific parks for a limited time they aren't forcing them to go home, or go to any other specific location.

In the specific case of NYC, the city doesn't seem to be really preventing anyone from assembling. Even with respect to this planned carnival, I see no reason this latest action would interfere with it. People can gather Thursday and do all the videotaping of messages they want. However, blocking streets and camping out for months on end isn't a necessary prerequisite to assembly, and I see no reason it should be allowed.

Arresting people without giving them a fair chance to move away, and using force on people that aren't violent are two things I certainly have an issue with. However, I frankly don't think it is unreasonable to clear people out of a public place at least once a week to clean it up. If they fail to allow anyone back into the park then there could again be an issue if there isn't any other suitable place for them to assemble.

In a perfect world, this guy would be spending a few years in jail, however, the statute is three years for assault.

Could you at least have the fucking brains to DO THE RESEARCH YOURSELF before opening your mouth like a fucking parrot?

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/22.04.00.html

In this section:

(1) "Child" means a person 14 years of age or younger. ...
(3) "Disabled individual" means a person older than 14
years of age who by reason of age or physical or mental disease,
defect, or injury is substantially unable to protect himself from
harm or to provide food, shelter, or medical care for himself.

I put 'criminal' in quotes be cause honestly I don't feel he committed a crime. Is it a crime on the books?

Yes, it is.

One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.

Sure, so's spitting on the sidewalk, carrying an ice cream cone in your pocket and a woman driving while wearing a house coat. My personal feeling is it's one of those laws prosecutors like to pile on, in the hopes maybe one will stick. It's totally up to the prosecutors discretion if they wish to pursue the case.

There might be somewhere but California police considers selling property which does not belong to you the same as selling stolen property. This isn't some ancient ordinance about not sneezing in the presence of horses.

But they didn't just call the police. http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-04-30/business/20877418_1_iphone-tech-blog-gizmodo-steering [sfgate.com] They went to their special tech task force, which they have a seat on the steering committee of.

By calling a task force of the police, did they not contact the police? Did you expect Apple to call 911 for what was not an emergency situation? Did you expect them to call Homicide division? Your complaint is that they contacted the division that specifically deals with the situation that they were in?

Yes, I'd try to get my phone back. Just they way I stated. Go to the house of the person possessing it, with a lawyer and perhaps an officer if I, being a normal person, could convince one to spend the time on my case, and politely say "Hey, you found my phone, that I lost. Kindly return it, and here's a small reward for finding it. Btw, keeping it is a crime and I'd rather not take it further but I will."

And would you then complain about how Apple sent their thug lawyers after some poor guy who found a phone? And do you know if that person isn't a dangerous unstable individual with a cache of weapons? I would let the police do their jobs.

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/485.html

IANAL, but it's spelled out pretty clearly in black and white. He's lucky he didn't get jail time.

California Penal Code section 485: One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.

VERY easy to prove intent here, as he sold a phone worth, maybe, $800 tops, for $5000. He knew exactly what he had, and he acted criminally in not returning it to the bar owner or Apple itself. Moreover, he clearly tried to profit from his theft. He's lucky he didn't get jail time.

Think what you want about the morality of the law. However, it's clearly spelled out, and he clearly broke it.

Lying to public officials, especially federal officers, is in and of itself a crime.

False. If a cop asks you where you were last night, and you say down at the corner bar when you were actually sleeping with your mistress, the act of lying to the cop isn't a crime. In rare cases, it might be obstruction of justice, but that's it.

Likely false. For example, ask Casey Anthony. Then read the statute under which she was convicted. Don't imagine that it's the only one. Are they questioning you concerning a felony? *DING*... you've committed a crime. Are you willing to bet that you're only being questioned concerning a misdemeanor? Because the police are not going to tell you that.

but even then mere lying isn't sufficient, it must be a material lie.

Materiality is a low bar. And if you read the linked statutes, you'll note that materiality is not necessarily required. If you're taking a lie detector examination, you're answering questions under oath. Public officials are not fools. You can study the entire criminal code of the jurisdiction that you happen to be in, as well as looking for specific provisions pertaining to taxation, permitting, and other topics where intentional inaccuracy is highly frowned upon, or you can assume that lying to a public official is generally a bad idea. ACs are big on giving weasel advice where it's not their butts on the line, but as the rest of us can see, taking your advice is a demonstrably bad idea.

Lying to public officials, especially federal officers, is in and of itself a crime.

False. If a cop asks you where you were last night, and you say down at the corner bar when you were actually sleeping with your mistress, the act of lying to the cop isn't a crime. In rare cases, it might be obstruction of justice, but that's it.

Likely false. For example, ask Casey Anthony. Then read the statute under which she was convicted. Don't imagine that it's the only one. Are they questioning you concerning a felony? *DING*... you've committed a crime. Are you willing to bet that you're only being questioned concerning a misdemeanor? Because the police are not going to tell you that.

but even then mere lying isn't sufficient, it must be a material lie.

Materiality is a low bar. And if you read the linked statutes, you'll note that materiality is not necessarily required. If you're taking a lie detector examination, you're answering questions under oath. Public officials are not fools. You can study the entire criminal code of the jurisdiction that you happen to be in, as well as looking for specific provisions pertaining to taxation, permitting, and other topics where intentional inaccuracy is highly frowned upon, or you can assume that lying to a public official is generally a bad idea. ACs are big on giving weasel advice where it's not their butts on the line, but as the rest of us can see, taking your advice is a demonstrably bad idea.

Lying to public officials, especially federal officers, is in and of itself a crime.

False. If a cop asks you where you were last night, and you say down at the corner bar when you were actually sleeping with your mistress, the act of lying to the cop isn't a crime. In rare cases, it might be obstruction of justice, but that's it.

Likely false. For example, ask Casey Anthony. Then read the statute under which she was convicted. Don't imagine that it's the only one. Are they questioning you concerning a felony? *DING*... you've committed a crime. Are you willing to bet that you're only being questioned concerning a misdemeanor? Because the police are not going to tell you that.

but even then mere lying isn't sufficient, it must be a material lie.

Materiality is a low bar. And if you read the linked statutes, you'll note that materiality is not necessarily required. If you're taking a lie detector examination, you're answering questions under oath. Public officials are not fools. You can study the entire criminal code of the jurisdiction that you happen to be in, as well as looking for specific provisions pertaining to taxation, permitting, and other topics where intentional inaccuracy is highly frowned upon, or you can assume that lying to a public official is generally a bad idea. ACs are big on giving weasel advice where it's not their butts on the line, but as the rest of us can see, taking your advice is a demonstrably bad idea.

Lying to public officials, especially federal officers, is in and of itself a crime.

False. If a cop asks you where you were last night, and you say down at the corner bar when you were actually sleeping with your mistress, the act of lying to the cop isn't a crime. In rare cases, it might be obstruction of justice, but that's it.

Likely false. For example, ask Casey Anthony. Then read the statute under which she was convicted. Don't imagine that it's the only one. Are they questioning you concerning a felony? *DING*... you've committed a crime. Are you willing to bet that you're only being questioned concerning a misdemeanor? Because the police are not going to tell you that.

but even then mere lying isn't sufficient, it must be a material lie.

Materiality is a low bar. And if you read the linked statutes, you'll note that materiality is not necessarily required. If you're taking a lie detector examination, you're answering questions under oath. Public officials are not fools. You can study the entire criminal code of the jurisdiction that you happen to be in, as well as looking for specific provisions pertaining to taxation, permitting, and other topics where intentional inaccuracy is highly frowned upon, or you can assume that lying to a public official is generally a bad idea. ACs are big on giving weasel advice where it's not their butts on the line, but as the rest of us can see, taking your advice is a demonstrably bad idea.

What is the justification for searching someone who has been convicted of no crime? Does that justification apply to DNA?

Search incident to arrest is justified by the need to protect the arresting officer from danger, as well as preventing destruction of evidence. Do these justifications apply to DNA? No, they clearly do not. DNA cannot be used as a weapon against a police officer, and the suspect's DNA cannot be destroyed.

So it's pretty clear that the existing justifications for searches incident to arrest do not apply to DNA.

Uh, the roadster is very much based on the outgoing Elise chassis. See here and here. Notice in the first link The Product will be derived from the federal market LOTUS Elise platform. .

I'm pretty sure you cannot legally shoot someone simply for trespassing in Texas, in fact I've read about people being prosecuted for doing just that. Read Texas PC 9.41 - 9.42. The key word in there is "reasonably".

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/9.41.00.html

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/9.42.00.html

I'm pretty sure you cannot legally shoot someone simply for trespassing in Texas, in fact I've read about people being prosecuted for doing just that. Read Texas PC 9.41 - 9.42. The key word in there is "reasonably".

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/9.41.00.html

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/9.42.00.html

Did you even read my post? I said qualified immunity requires the plaintiff show bad faith. It's very rare that a court finds this, and holds an officer liable.

As for the second part, stop impersonating a lawyer. You really don't know what the hell you are talking about. Nothing in that section precludes a state or city from indemnifying a police officer (stop saying "department," cities pay lawsuits, not departments), and California law requires the city defend the police officer, and most local codes require the city to do so as well. And the city even has the discretion to pay punitive damages where bad faith has been found, and this authority has been upheld by the 9th Circuit.

Again, lawyer impersonator, I've worked both sides of the bar in police civil rights cases. Your comments about LA are silly. The LA Muni Code requires the city pay damages of police officers, as do most cities, and this has been tested by federal courts, even in punitive damages (bad faith) cases.

It should be noted that public sector union bargaining is not universal in the US.

For teachers, 35 states have mandatory collective bargaining rights, 11 states permit collective bargaining (neither mandating or prohibiting), and 5 states specifically prohibit collective bargaining of teachers.

Some states have no public sector union bargaining at all.

Virginia Code 40.1-57.2 "Prohibition against collective bargaining" says: "No state, county, municipal, or like governmental officer, agent or governing body is vested with or possesses any authority to recognize any labor union or other employee association as a bargaining agent of any public officers or employees, or to collectively bargain or enter into any collective bargaining contract with any such union or association or its agents with respect to any matter relating to them or their employment or service."

Texas has government code 617.002. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BY PUBLIC EMPLOYEES PROHIBITED. "(a) An official of the state or of a political subdivision of the state may not enter into a collective bargaining contract with a labor organization regarding wages, hours, or conditions of employment of public employees. (b) A contract entered into in violation of Subsection (a) is void. (c) An official of the state or of a political subdivision of the state may not recognize a labor organization as the bargaining agent for a group of public employees."

A huge part of the blame for that lies squarely on Hamilton's shoulders. He wanted a monarchy. He used his influence to pack the courts with judges who agreed with him that they should weasel around what the Constitution actually says.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

That's at the bottom of Article I, Section 8, titled "Powers of Congress." It's a very specific list of the things they're allowed to do.

Common sense interpretation: if they have to write a law to implement one of the extremely specific and limited set of powers we have explicitly delegated to them, and that law actually does that, then they can do that. If they couldn't, then what would be the point?

Treasonous lawyer interpretation: if they think it will advance the general welfare, then they can pass any law they want. Never mind that the entire point behind the Constitution was to keep the federal government from growing into an uncontrollable behemoth with limitless powers.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That's the preamble. It's explaining what the Constitution is about, and why they need to give the federal government the jaw-dropping powers they actually did give it. Even given the belief that people would actually be vigilant, pay attention, and overthrow any government that tried to usurp any more power, there was a strong movement against giving it as much as they did.

It doesn't authorize anything or give any powers to anyone. It's nothing more than a flowery introduction.

Treasonous government interpretation: we'll do exactly what you did. Put these three phrases in conjunction, take them out of context, and run rampant over the serfs who are too stupid to read it for themselves or pay attention to the original intent.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Toward the top of Article I, Section 8. "Regulate" and "Commerce" both have very specific meanings at the time. Hamilton's cronies (specifically John Marshall) started sweeping that that under the rug almost immediately. Power to Regulate Commerce is an interesting look at the history of how this clause got corrupted from meaning "Keeping transfers of commercial goods among the States regular" to "Whatever Congress says it means today.

I repeat: either the Constitution means exactly the same thing it originally did (plus the Amendments), or it means absolutely nothing at all. If it's the latter, then there is absolutely no rational basis for the federal government's existence.

Of course, judges and politicians won't agree with me. They have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, shearing us sheep for the benefit of their owners, the megacorps. To paraphrase Ben Franklin: "You have a Republic, as long as you can keep it."

We did a horrible job of that throughout the 20th century. So far, this one just seems to be heading downhill faster.

Only that you might end up like the pedophilia book guy. He was arrested on obscenity charges in florida after sending his book there. The obscenity laws are quite clear, they can charge anyone who publishes or distributes obscene material. They wouldn't go after Amazon, but they sure as hell will go after the little guy.

http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/847.011.html

It's not quite that simple, and there is virtually no ALWAYS in law.

Read through this:
http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-2/18-treaties-as-law-of-the-land.html

You'll feel vindicated in the first paragraph or so, but keep reading, at least through:

What other treaty provisions need congressional implementation is subject to argument. In a 1907 memorandum approved by the Secretary of State, it is said, in summary of the practice and reasoning from the text of the Constitution, that the limitations on the treaty power which necessitate legislative implementation may “be found in the provisions of the Constitution which expressly confide in Congress or in other branches of the Federal Government the exercise of certain of the delegated powers....”304 The same thought has been expressed in Congress305 and by commentators.306 Resolution of the issue seems particularly one for the attention of the legislative and executive branches rather than for the courts

Treason, the topic I was speaking to when I said that international law did not supercede, is a crime against a State by a citizen of that State. Therefore, it is not typically subject to international laws, as understood by the groundwork established in the Treaty of Westphalia as concerns sovereignty of States.

Also, it is delegated to the US Congress to make laws in this area; therefore, a treaty executed by the Executive may not override it without specific approval by the Congress.
Therefore, the specific US Code I quoted would have to be revoked if it conflicted with a treaty. As that Code does stand today, it cannot be in conflict with any international law applicable to the USA.

Not exactly. I'm from Texas.
http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/9.42.00.html

I did NOT write that it has to go to a jury. I wrote that HP has the right under both the California and American Constitutions to demand that the section of the California Civil Code be applied. HP has asked for a jury trial, but they could have also asked for a bench trial. That is their privilege, same as Oracle. What is not their privilege, but their Constitutionally-guaranteed right, is enforcement of the California Civil Code. The law is applicable to potential disclosures. That's why it provides for a restraining order. Here's the entire text of the section of the law that HP cites:

3426.
a. Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined.
Upon application to the court, an injunction shall be terminated when
the trade secret has ceased to exist, but the injunction may be
continued for an additional period of time in order to eliminate
commercial advantage that otherwise would be derived from the
misappropriation.

Is a non-compete sometimes valid in California? Absolutely!

Section 16600 has specifically been held to invalid employment contracts which
prohibit an employee from working for a competitor when the employment has
been terminated, unless necessary to protect the employer's trade secrets."
(Metro Traffic Control, Inc. v. Shadow Traffic Network(1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 853, 859.)

That's pretty straight-forward.

1. HP holds what appears to be an enforceable non-compete against Hurd
   under California law, specifically section 3426.2a and the 16600 exception.
2. Whether Hurd's employment at Oracle represents a threatened disclosure
   of trade secrets is a fact to be determined at trial.
3. Whether HP has a valid non-compete under the trade secret exception
   to Section 16600 hinges on that to-be-determined fact, so the judge can't
   toss the case without first having the trial.
4. The only way out of a trial is for Oracle to fire Hurd and pay HP some
   blood money to walk away.

So, I'm still holding the Pair of Courts, the Pair of Legislatures, and the Pair of Constitutions, as well as the Queen of Trade Secret Protection and for the Trump the Non-Compete Exception. Oh yes, I also have the legal brief prepared by high-powered lawyers. You have ... ummm .... nothing much?

What the heck, go fish :-) Maybe you'll get lucky this time.

The contractual term is illegal in California

No, it's not. Please,.for once, follow a link and read it instead of believing the echo chamber that is most of slashdot's uninformed masses.

Here - since everyone is so brain-dead when it comes to actually doing any research ... he's being sued under California statute 3426.2

California Civil Code Section 3426.2

(a) Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined. Upon application to the court, an injunction shall be terminated when the trade secret has ceased to exist, but the injunction may be continued for an additional period of time in order to eliminate commercial advantage that otherwise would be derived from the misappropriation. (b) If the court determines that it would be unreasonable to prohibit future use, an injunction may condition future use upon payment of a reasonable royalty for no longer than the period of time the use could have been prohibited. (c) In appropriate circumstances, affirmative acts to protect a trade secret may be compelled by court order.

In other words, the separation agreement which he received over $12 million dollars to sign on August 6th, and which he violated less than one month later (because the deal had to be in place before it was announced) is in full conformity with California law. The agreement puts in writing both parties rights and obligations under California law.

This (their hiring of Hurd) also tells us that Oracle doesn't have a clue as to what to do with Sun's server division. Since the future of Sparc is already iffy at best, it looks like Ellison may one day be able to add Sun Servers to his "OraKILL hit list".

The discovery will be deep and ugly, because the acquisition of Sun by Oracle left a lot of people who have a story to tell and would be willing to talk - and that was before the last month of shenanigans.