You don't need a government agency for a 1983 action. It's a civil cause of action. You can sue yourself. As far as how many have been successful against police officers? I have no idea.
I know, what is it with the obscure art references? Next thing you know, they'll start talking about "Beethoven" (your classical music snobs will instantly recognize him as a composer who wrote a couple of mildly important symphonies, but has anybody outside of the fine arts building ever heard of him?) or "The Wizard of Oz" (some 20th century movie that apparently had some minor cultural impact for a couple of years after it came out).
Local governments are part of the state government, since they have no separate sovereignty. You can't sue the state or your city unless it waives sovereign immunity, or unless the federal government waives their sovereign immunity for them (as I explained here.
With the disclaimer that it's been a few years since I took torts and Con law (so take this with a grain of salt), sovereign immunity doesn't protect state actors from violations of civil rights. In fact, 42 USC 1983 specifically creates a federal cause of action for violation of federal constitutional and statutory rights. And it's not limited to just federal actors. It's "any person" who "under color of [authority]" deprives a person of their federal civil rights. If I remember correctly, the theory behind this statute is that the federal government can waive the states' sovereign immunity under the auspices of the 14th Amendment, since it came after the 11th Amendment, which solidified the states' sovereign immunity. So assuming everything is as it's stated in the summary, Rachner would have a federal cause of action against the police department.
If I were defending a person in court and the prosecutor was stupid enough to so much as mentioned my client's failure to testify, my very next move would be a motion for a mistrial. Invoking your Fifth Amendment right to not testify cannot be used against you. If it could, it would be a meaningless right, because it would always be used as a tacit admission of guilt. There are plenty of good reasons for an innocent person to invoke the Fifth, and no good reasons for anybody, guilty or innocent, not to.
The problem with your suggestion is that there are many different terms that could be acceptable on a single issue. And my point is, if you're doing something where you have to ask, "I wonder if they're going to complain about this," you need to see what the agreement says. Depending on what's at stake, you may also need to get legal advice before doing something questionable. For example, if you buy software and plan to run it on a single computer and use it for its intended purpose, you probably don't need to worry. But if you intend to do anything else, you probably need to check the EULA.
Fortunately or unfortunately, what's "good" and what's "legal" do not always align. Sony updates destroy your ability to run Linux on a PS3. Is that legal? If I put on my "consumer advocate" hat, I would argue that Sony knew that people were buying PS3s with the intention of running Linux on them, and if they didn't like that, they should have made it more clear that they didn't like that and that they would take steps in the future to prevent it, even if it costs them short-term sales. If I put on my "Sony advocate" hat, I would argue that you knew that the PS3 was a game console, not a general-purpose computer, and that if you planned to use it for other than its intended purpose, you're in that group that really should carefully read the agreement to see whether that violated any terms, and whether future software/firmware updates might remove that ability, even if that meant that you couldn't buy a PS3 as a Linux box. What's the right legal answer? I will be happy to tell you just as soon as you've taken your case through final judgment and exhausted your appeals.
What's the right thing to do? Is it "right" for Sony to try to exercise iron-fisted control over your legally-purchased hardware? Is it "right" for you to purchase a gaming console, use it as a PC, and then complain when this unintended use interferes with its intended function? Those are probably even tougher to answer than the legal question. But what's clear is that Sony's decision has turned a happy customer into a boycotter. Is that smart from a business standpoint? I guess it depends on how much they gain from breaking Linux compatibility.
If you're that terribly concerned about it, then read the agreement, and don't agree to it if you don't like it. Since you've demonstrated a deep distrust of corporations, you have all the more reason to do so. Just don't read it, think "I don't like that term," and then click "I Agree" anyway. Because then you truly have nothing to complain about.
Re:Oh no money for software and content!
on
How To Build a Winscape
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Patents only apply if you want to sell it. They mean nothing if you only want to build your own plasma screens.
That is absolutely not true. You might not get sued for patent infringement because you're an insolvent nobody and the damages won't be worth the cost of the litigation, but you infringe a patent if you make, sell, offer to sell, use, or import something that is covered by the claims. 35 U.S.C. 271.
I think you're overreacting a little bit. I've written terms of use for websites for some of my clients. They're usually not that big a deal. They say things like we're not giving up any copyright and you can't use our website for illegal purposes. And they're generally accessible via a simple link at the bottom of each page that says "Terms of Use" (there's also usually a one for "Privacy Policy"). The courts are well aware that the majority of users don't read these things. Heck, I'm a lawyer, and I don't generally read Terms of Use, EULAs, or the stack of documents that you sign when you buy a house. But they serve a valid and necessary purpose. They provide clarity about the parties' relationship, and if a person wants to do something other than just look at the webpage, they should read the Terms of Use to see what it says about it. That's why there are protections, both statutory and common law, for consumers. It lets us use form contracts without getting carried away. A very draconian, highly unexpected and completely-unrelated-to-the-transaction term like selling your soul would be voidable in pretty much every court that follows English common law tradition. This was a joke. Have a hearty chuckle and move on.
In other news, aliens with advanced weaponry might invade the earth tomorrow, and that would be a real game changer. So we need to start working on a counteroffensive NOW!
What you're missing with all your melodrama is that nobody is saying it would be impossible for rogues or terrorists to get a nuclear-capable device. But if it happens, it's not likely to be one that was the object of the largest search effort for a man-made device ever in the history of the world that still failed to find it. And these nukes aren't so special. Your hypothetical terrorists don't need to find these particular devices, because there are easier ways to get their hands on some other nuclear device. Nobody needs to plan specifically for the contingency that some terrorists find this particular nuclear device. They just need to plan for the general contingency that terrorists find some kind of nuclear device. A terrorist finding these particular devices is not a black swan event, because it would be no different from a terrorist getting a nuclear device via more reasonable means. And I don't even think a terrorist finding a nuclear device is a black swan event. Everybody is aware that the risk is there, and everybody is aware that it would be a really big deal. That's why there's a lot of time and effort directed at avoiding that very thing.
Short answer: No. The statute of limitations on patent infringement is six years. And in the case of ongoing infringement, even if you miss the six year mark from when infringement started, you can still get damages back to six years from when you filed your law suit.
No that guy's name is "Reginald Allan Newton Tandy" or "Rico Antonio Nunes Torres" or something like that. I don't remember exactly, but I do remember thinking it was funny to see a file named after him in my/dev directory
Slashdot Mirror
That joke is only funny if you err in your pronunciation of "err."
You don't need a government agency for a 1983 action. It's a civil cause of action. You can sue yourself. As far as how many have been successful against police officers? I have no idea.
Also, the naked dead guy.
I know, what is it with the obscure art references? Next thing you know, they'll start talking about "Beethoven" (your classical music snobs will instantly recognize him as a composer who wrote a couple of mildly important symphonies, but has anybody outside of the fine arts building ever heard of him?) or "The Wizard of Oz" (some 20th century movie that apparently had some minor cultural impact for a couple of years after it came out).
Local governments are part of the state government, since they have no separate sovereignty. You can't sue the state or your city unless it waives sovereign immunity, or unless the federal government waives their sovereign immunity for them (as I explained here.
With the disclaimer that it's been a few years since I took torts and Con law (so take this with a grain of salt), sovereign immunity doesn't protect state actors from violations of civil rights. In fact, 42 USC 1983 specifically creates a federal cause of action for violation of federal constitutional and statutory rights. And it's not limited to just federal actors. It's "any person" who "under color of [authority]" deprives a person of their federal civil rights. If I remember correctly, the theory behind this statute is that the federal government can waive the states' sovereign immunity under the auspices of the 14th Amendment, since it came after the 11th Amendment, which solidified the states' sovereign immunity. So assuming everything is as it's stated in the summary, Rachner would have a federal cause of action against the police department.
but a pencil jabbed sideways into a watermelon is art
Ummmm, okay, if you say so. Personally, I'd set the bar for "art" at least higher than something my two-year-old might do at random.
If I were defending a person in court and the prosecutor was stupid enough to so much as mentioned my client's failure to testify, my very next move would be a motion for a mistrial. Invoking your Fifth Amendment right to not testify cannot be used against you. If it could, it would be a meaningless right, because it would always be used as a tacit admission of guilt. There are plenty of good reasons for an innocent person to invoke the Fifth, and no good reasons for anybody, guilty or innocent, not to.
The problem with your suggestion is that there are many different terms that could be acceptable on a single issue. And my point is, if you're doing something where you have to ask, "I wonder if they're going to complain about this," you need to see what the agreement says. Depending on what's at stake, you may also need to get legal advice before doing something questionable. For example, if you buy software and plan to run it on a single computer and use it for its intended purpose, you probably don't need to worry. But if you intend to do anything else, you probably need to check the EULA.
Fortunately or unfortunately, what's "good" and what's "legal" do not always align. Sony updates destroy your ability to run Linux on a PS3. Is that legal? If I put on my "consumer advocate" hat, I would argue that Sony knew that people were buying PS3s with the intention of running Linux on them, and if they didn't like that, they should have made it more clear that they didn't like that and that they would take steps in the future to prevent it, even if it costs them short-term sales. If I put on my "Sony advocate" hat, I would argue that you knew that the PS3 was a game console, not a general-purpose computer, and that if you planned to use it for other than its intended purpose, you're in that group that really should carefully read the agreement to see whether that violated any terms, and whether future software/firmware updates might remove that ability, even if that meant that you couldn't buy a PS3 as a Linux box. What's the right legal answer? I will be happy to tell you just as soon as you've taken your case through final judgment and exhausted your appeals.
What's the right thing to do? Is it "right" for Sony to try to exercise iron-fisted control over your legally-purchased hardware? Is it "right" for you to purchase a gaming console, use it as a PC, and then complain when this unintended use interferes with its intended function? Those are probably even tougher to answer than the legal question. But what's clear is that Sony's decision has turned a happy customer into a boycotter. Is that smart from a business standpoint? I guess it depends on how much they gain from breaking Linux compatibility.
If you're that terribly concerned about it, then read the agreement, and don't agree to it if you don't like it. Since you've demonstrated a deep distrust of corporations, you have all the more reason to do so. Just don't read it, think "I don't like that term," and then click "I Agree" anyway. Because then you truly have nothing to complain about.
Patents only apply if you want to sell it. They mean nothing if you only want to build your own plasma screens.
That is absolutely not true. You might not get sued for patent infringement because you're an insolvent nobody and the damages won't be worth the cost of the litigation, but you infringe a patent if you make, sell, offer to sell, use, or import something that is covered by the claims. 35 U.S.C. 271.
I think you're overreacting a little bit. I've written terms of use for websites for some of my clients. They're usually not that big a deal. They say things like we're not giving up any copyright and you can't use our website for illegal purposes. And they're generally accessible via a simple link at the bottom of each page that says "Terms of Use" (there's also usually a one for "Privacy Policy"). The courts are well aware that the majority of users don't read these things. Heck, I'm a lawyer, and I don't generally read Terms of Use, EULAs, or the stack of documents that you sign when you buy a house. But they serve a valid and necessary purpose. They provide clarity about the parties' relationship, and if a person wants to do something other than just look at the webpage, they should read the Terms of Use to see what it says about it. That's why there are protections, both statutory and common law, for consumers. It lets us use form contracts without getting carried away. A very draconian, highly unexpected and completely-unrelated-to-the-transaction term like selling your soul would be voidable in pretty much every court that follows English common law tradition. This was a joke. Have a hearty chuckle and move on.
It is perfectly legal to format shift media. Perhaps he just prefers the flip-book format his is video needs.
He's just heard people talking about how actual paper reduces eye strain. And he can watch it on the airplane without worrying about battery life.
In other news, aliens with advanced weaponry might invade the earth tomorrow, and that would be a real game changer. So we need to start working on a counteroffensive NOW!
What you're missing with all your melodrama is that nobody is saying it would be impossible for rogues or terrorists to get a nuclear-capable device. But if it happens, it's not likely to be one that was the object of the largest search effort for a man-made device ever in the history of the world that still failed to find it. And these nukes aren't so special. Your hypothetical terrorists don't need to find these particular devices, because there are easier ways to get their hands on some other nuclear device. Nobody needs to plan specifically for the contingency that some terrorists find this particular nuclear device. They just need to plan for the general contingency that terrorists find some kind of nuclear device. A terrorist finding these particular devices is not a black swan event, because it would be no different from a terrorist getting a nuclear device via more reasonable means. And I don't even think a terrorist finding a nuclear device is a black swan event. Everybody is aware that the risk is there, and everybody is aware that it would be a really big deal. That's why there's a lot of time and effort directed at avoiding that very thing.
Your mother-in-law lives in a different universe? How'd you manage that?
Short answer: No. The statute of limitations on patent infringement is six years. And in the case of ongoing infringement, even if you miss the six year mark from when infringement started, you can still get damages back to six years from when you filed your law suit.
And since global warming is not George W. Bush, it seems to be perfectly qualified.
Why not just hibernate your main OS and then boot into the live CD? It doesn't take that long to load the memory snapshot from a cold boot.
It's a shame, though, to waste that joke on people who can't so much as differentiate between "your" and "you're."
No that guy's name is "Reginald Allan Newton Tandy" or "Rico Antonio Nunes Torres" or something like that. I don't remember exactly, but I do remember thinking it was funny to see a file named after him in my /dev directory
You keep using that word. The Framers do not think it means what you think it means.
Oh, come on mods, flamebait? That was funny! And I say that as a conservative.
If it is the present, then all is futility, for we are already irredeemably lost.
Please, we hear enough dystopian doomsday scenarios with the pending vote on Obamacare. Can we just skip this particularly bleak vision of the future?