Incidentally, the Australian system requires you by law to vote. Maybe that's something the US ought to consider importing too. Argue if you want about being free to NOT vote, but voting is a duty, not just a right, and you should be compelled to do it. Just like you are to report to training if you get drafted, or filing a tax return--you're not free to refuse either of those without legal consequences, right?
This will never, never, never happen in the US. Our population is too large and, in general, the class divide too wide for the GOP to ever let this happen. Not saying whether it's a good thing either way, but if every American voted in every election, I think you'd see a few more Dems in power.
for a corporation to go around building schools and wielding influence over the public sector in an attempt to gain loyalty in kids from day one. Charitable work is supposed to be done by charitable foundations, and that's why we have laws to govern how foundations work. I'm sure there's a huge Microsoft foundation, why don't they make it one of their goals to build tech-laden schools all over the place? The foundation's interest is in promoting social welfare (and spending money, since it has to spend 5% of its balance per year) whereas the corporation's interest is in increasing profits.
1) Recent laws were either passed or rescinded that allowed concenting people to engage in Sodomy - basically, it's the "What-goes-on-in-your-bedroom-is-your-business" attitude - in certain states. It had nothing to do with allowing homosexual people to exist. Your comment ("...recent orders permitting gays and lesbians...") sounded like the "West" didn't permit Homosexuals to exist.
This is because of a prohibition on status crimes, not because the early South (or, in this case, Texas) didn't want to do this. Rather, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled (in accordance with commonly accepted principles of actus reus) that an act or omission of an act must constitute a crime, not something else. I think it was a town in California that made being a drug addict illegal--this was overturned because no acts (in the appealed case) had been committed, simply the status of the defendant was on trial. I believe "drunk in public" laws are the only mainstream laws to violate this principle, and they are based on the idea that a drunk will commit acts in public, not simply be a drunk.
Generally accepted by whom? Conspiracy theorists? Don't you think something like that would be rather newsworthy?
Despite that, if someone tried the same scheme now, they'd have 100+ Americans fighting to gain control of the cockpit. A couple of knives isn't going to turn the tables on those odds.
No, the reason it will probably be a one-time thing is that the passengers won't let it happen. Remember, it is relatively easy (Richard Ried notwithstanding, now we are searching shoes) to prevent bombs and guns from getting on planes, and relatively difficult to prevent all knives and such. The fourth plane on September 11th did not hit the White House (or Capitol, or wherever it was headed) because the passengers wouldn't allow it. They rushed the 3-4 hijackers, and they couldn't do anything about it. Planes can still be hijacked, but I doubt you will see that type of attack again in our lifetimes, at least not in the United States.
Mod parent up. You just can't have mobile phone networks in the US like you do in (especially Western) Europe, because of the population sparsity. I'm not terribly familiar with the companies/networks in Europe, but if I'm not mistaken you can get a phone from Orange only in the UK, with a UK country code on it...how is this different from being forced to have a NY state area code on your phone?
At my old company Unanet we supported tomcat right along with JRun...as for development, I preferred tomcat. But customers could use either if they so chose. JRun was just a pain in the ass...
Pretty sure they still support it, but I wouldn't know anymore.
To accept credit card payments on Paypal, you have to have a business account, which charges you 2.9% plus 18 cents per transaction. Personal accounts can receive money from electronic funds transfer (EFT) or existing Paypal balances but not from credit cards.
Do you understand what stocks are, and what an IPO is? A company is only legally allowed to sell a certain number of shares, and usually offers less than that as their initial offering...allowing everyone and their moms to buy the shares is stupid, because there's a limited number of shares to go around. That's why IPOs used to go up their first day, because more people wanted the shares than there were shares to go around.
One of the things people need to learn (all people, but especially people on slashdot, who tend to be very competant at technical stuff but totally oblivious to matters of law) is that when you are hired by a company, in 99% of cases you are hired "as-is" by your employer. Unless you have an employment contract with a defined length of time (trust me, you don't) you can be fired for any reason except a few that the courts have determined are illegal.
Examples of these actionable reasons are sex/gender discrimination, racial discrimination, or sexual orientation (I think...) Age discrimination is on the list, but it's only for old people being replaced by new people. So it's illegal to fire someone who's really old just because they're really old, but it's perfectly legal to fire someone who's young just because they're young.
So the point is that you're hired as-is and can be fired for any reason other than those specifically prohibited. If your boss doesn't like your nose ring or your green hair, he can fire you, and it's perfectly legal. So there's nothing for slashdot to tell you--if you're fired, you're fired. There's no legal right to have a job. Deal with it.
IANAL, but have taken law classes. I could be wrong on terminology but the basic idea is right.
Yes, they did do this, and it's pretty bad-ass. They put a small bomb in his cell phone, but they called him, and when he answered, did a voice print analysis. When it matched, they blew his head off. The bomb was small enough but placed well enough that nobody else around him was even hurt, but he was a goner.
Can I use my moderator points to mod down this article as ignorant? Is Tim ever going to learn the difference between Chapter 11 bankruptcy and liquidation? "Calling it quits" and filing for Chapter 11 are not the same thing, man.
Actually, no. Yes, in Ch11 you're seeking legal protection from creditors, but only if you arrange a repayment plan that doesn't include ALL creditors getting ALL their money a little late will you have credit problems. A vast majority of companies that go in to Chapter 11 pay everyone off entirely, they just need some extra time to do it. Their credit is not hurt, and they keep going. This is why the US Bankruptcy laws are probably the best laws we have...
At least on this post, timothy acknowledges that filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy is NOT liquidation, but he qualifies his statement by saying that Ch11 is "dangerously close" to the business failing. Countless times on replies to slashdot articles I've seen people talk about how a company is "dead", "through", "finished" because they go into Chapter 11. This simply isn't the case at all--Chapter 11 gives them extra time for restructuring to pay off their creditors. Yes, it does mean that they're having trouble paying their creditors, but it does NOT in ANY WAY mean that they're liquidating. People should do their homework.
Someone mod this post up. I am really sick and tired of slashdotters who haven't had so much as an introductory law class talking about due process and grounds for a claim, etc. etc. etc...
This poster is correct in the sense that the problem with the contract in question is that the stipulation about the "fine" (which isn't really a fine...but anyway) wasn't made clear enough in the contract. It's like how you can't have something in fine print sign away your house to a rental car company...
The problem is the lack of clarity in the contract, not the concept. Slashdot, wake up, you don't know jack about the law.
Then, supposing you DO get a 'real' ticket from the local PD, you get home and you're fined by the rental car agency? Can we say 'double jeopardy'?
No, we can't, not in this situation. You're being "fined" (it's not really a fine, you agreed to it) because you violated a provision of a contract. The contract stipulates damages for that violation. Double Jeopardy only refers to the same government prosecuting a person for a criminal act. And yes, that means that if you commit a crime that has both federal and state actions (bank robbery, maybe?) you can be found not guilty by the state but guilty by the feds, in two seperate trials. And it's not double jeopardy--that would only be if the Feds tried you twice.
You've proved my point. Loan companies can't do those things, nor can mortgage companies because of the violations to your rights. But the above mentioned post suggested that, in the name of 'protecting assets', so as long as it's in the contract, it's OK.
Of course it's not OK. We would'nt allow a lease company, even if in a contract, to install cameras in your apartment to protect their 'assets' because it's wrong. So is this GPS deal.
Uhh, no. You don't seem to understand that a loan company can put whatever they want in a loan contract and, if you agree to it, it's enforceable unless it's "unconscionable." Meaning that once they give you the cash to buy the house, it's your house, but as a condition of the loan they can do whatever they want. You don't have to accept the loan.
As long as you agreed to it, and it's not unconscionable, you're damn right it's OK. A court would absolutely allow a reasonable monitoring device (like a security system for fire) to be installed in an apartment even if you're leasing it--the lease agreement would say that the landlord had a right to terminate the contract if you started a fire. There's absolutely nothing legally wrong with this company putting GPS in a rental car, as long as they put their intended use for it in the rental agreement.
You're being a paranoid, ignorant slashdotter like most, assuming that personal privacy trumps all laws. Maybe it should, but it doesn't.
I don't own my car outright. A finance company owns it. By your logic, until I make the last payment, the finance company is in the right to install monitoring devices to 'protect' it's assests. Or, taking it a step further, a mortgage company (or in my case, the property management company I currently rent from) is perfectly justified to install cameras in my home to make sure I don't smoke in bed, throw wild partys, or do anything else that might damage 'their' property.
Wrong. When you lease your car, the finance company might own the car, but when you buy and finance a car with payments (yes, the majority of car purchases), you own the car. The finance company gets a lien on the car along with a promise to pay a certain number of installments in exchange for a wad of cash with which you buy the car. The lien is a right to sell the car if you violate the loan agreement. The only way they have/any/ power over you is if you (a) stop paying or (b) violate another part of the agreement. And they wouldb't be that you can't remove cameras or other probes from your car and/or house.
The reason you can't have cameras in your house to make sure you don't smoke in bed is because it is your house. They just have the right to sell it, giving you anything left over from what you still owe them, if you miss a payment or violate the loan agreement. Ahh, the mortgage--a beautiful thing.....
I think the "official" difference between DC101 and WHFS is that WHFS caters to 14-year-olds and DC101 caters to 15-year-olds. 98 Rock Baltimore is the way to go.
I'm sorry, I just don't see how this post was modded up to a 5...It's simply wrong. The case against AOL for child porn is/inherently different/ from the napster case, and if you had done any sort of study on the matter you would know that. As discussed in other replies to your post (a thread in which you directly contradicted yourself, no less), the Court's argument is that Napster was created with the sole intent of facilitating copyright violation, whereas AOL was not. This IS important--Sony v. Universal (or the other way around, I forget...it's the Betamax Case) used the precedent that a device (in these cases, a service, but it's essentially the same thing) must have reasonable non-infringing value for it to be legal in the US. Now, while the laws have changed quite a bit (against the people and for the wealthy copyright holders) with the DMCA, that principle remains key to this discussion. Not only does AOL provide tons of non-infringing uses to millions of people, it was not created for the intended purpose of infringement. According to the courts, Napster was. End of story.
Napster should, however, be exonerated because file sharing is fair use--but that's another story altogether.
Slashdot Mirror
This will never, never, never happen in the US. Our population is too large and, in general, the class divide too wide for the GOP to ever let this happen. Not saying whether it's a good thing either way, but if every American voted in every election, I think you'd see a few more Dems in power.
for a corporation to go around building schools and wielding influence over the public sector in an attempt to gain loyalty in kids from day one. Charitable work is supposed to be done by charitable foundations, and that's why we have laws to govern how foundations work. I'm sure there's a huge Microsoft foundation, why don't they make it one of their goals to build tech-laden schools all over the place? The foundation's interest is in promoting social welfare (and spending money, since it has to spend 5% of its balance per year) whereas the corporation's interest is in increasing profits.
This is because of a prohibition on status crimes, not because the early South (or, in this case, Texas) didn't want to do this. Rather, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled (in accordance with commonly accepted principles of actus reus) that an act or omission of an act must constitute a crime, not something else. I think it was a town in California that made being a drug addict illegal--this was overturned because no acts (in the appealed case) had been committed, simply the status of the defendant was on trial. I believe "drunk in public" laws are the only mainstream laws to violate this principle, and they are based on the idea that a drunk will commit acts in public, not simply be a drunk.
And IANAL.
Generally accepted by whom? Conspiracy theorists? Don't you think something like that would be rather newsworthy?
Despite that, if someone tried the same scheme now, they'd have 100+ Americans fighting to gain control of the cockpit. A couple of knives isn't going to turn the tables on those odds.
No, the reason it will probably be a one-time thing is that the passengers won't let it happen. Remember, it is relatively easy (Richard Ried notwithstanding, now we are searching shoes) to prevent bombs and guns from getting on planes, and relatively difficult to prevent all knives and such. The fourth plane on September 11th did not hit the White House (or Capitol, or wherever it was headed) because the passengers wouldn't allow it. They rushed the 3-4 hijackers, and they couldn't do anything about it. Planes can still be hijacked, but I doubt you will see that type of attack again in our lifetimes, at least not in the United States.
Mod parent up. You just can't have mobile phone networks in the US like you do in (especially Western) Europe, because of the population sparsity. I'm not terribly familiar with the companies/networks in Europe, but if I'm not mistaken you can get a phone from Orange only in the UK, with a UK country code on it...how is this different from being forced to have a NY state area code on your phone?
I just bought a 17" Samsung SyncMaster 171s from buy.com for $430. It can be done...
At my old company Unanet we supported tomcat right along with JRun...as for development, I preferred tomcat. But customers could use either if they so chose. JRun was just a pain in the ass...
Pretty sure they still support it, but I wouldn't know anymore.
"Wish I had that kind of cash to miscalculate on my income tax forms."
It isn't cash. It's earnings that were booked when they shouldn't have been. Good ol' matching principle.
Slashdot needs a review in accounting, commercial law, bankruptcy, etc....
To accept credit card payments on Paypal, you have to have a business account, which charges you 2.9% plus 18 cents per transaction. Personal accounts can receive money from electronic funds transfer (EFT) or existing Paypal balances but not from credit cards.
Do your homework!
...is the worst abuser of this. Every other damn place you have to go is branded...Levi's, KFC, Pizza Hut...boo.
Overusing the ellipsis mark since 1998. Damn right I have a low uid!
Do you understand what stocks are, and what an IPO is? A company is only legally allowed to sell a certain number of shares, and usually offers less than that as their initial offering...allowing everyone and their moms to buy the shares is stupid, because there's a limited number of shares to go around. That's why IPOs used to go up their first day, because more people wanted the shares than there were shares to go around.
Jesus...
Dmitri Sklyarov had nothing to do with digital music--he was arrested for a DMCA violation in cracking Adobe's ebooks. Get it right.
One of the things people need to learn (all people, but especially people on slashdot, who tend to be very competant at technical stuff but totally oblivious to matters of law) is that when you are hired by a company, in 99% of cases you are hired "as-is" by your employer. Unless you have an employment contract with a defined length of time (trust me, you don't) you can be fired for any reason except a few that the courts have determined are illegal.
Examples of these actionable reasons are sex/gender discrimination, racial discrimination, or sexual orientation (I think...) Age discrimination is on the list, but it's only for old people being replaced by new people. So it's illegal to fire someone who's really old just because they're really old, but it's perfectly legal to fire someone who's young just because they're young.
So the point is that you're hired as-is and can be fired for any reason other than those specifically prohibited. If your boss doesn't like your nose ring or your green hair, he can fire you, and it's perfectly legal. So there's nothing for slashdot to tell you--if you're fired, you're fired. There's no legal right to have a job. Deal with it.
IANAL, but have taken law classes. I could be wrong on terminology but the basic idea is right.
So how did you get the dollar back after putting it in her garter, so you could put it in another garter? you cheap bastard! :)
Yes, they did do this, and it's pretty bad-ass. They put a small bomb in his cell phone, but they called him, and when he answered, did a voice print analysis. When it matched, they blew his head off. The bomb was small enough but placed well enough that nobody else around him was even hurt, but he was a goner.
Note to self: Don't fuck with the Israelis!
Can I use my moderator points to mod down this article as ignorant? Is Tim ever going to learn the difference between Chapter 11 bankruptcy and liquidation? "Calling it quits" and filing for Chapter 11 are not the same thing, man.
Actually, no. Yes, in Ch11 you're seeking legal protection from creditors, but only if you arrange a repayment plan that doesn't include ALL creditors getting ALL their money a little late will you have credit problems. A vast majority of companies that go in to Chapter 11 pay everyone off entirely, they just need some extra time to do it. Their credit is not hurt, and they keep going. This is why the US Bankruptcy laws are probably the best laws we have...
At least on this post, timothy acknowledges that filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy is NOT liquidation, but he qualifies his statement by saying that Ch11 is "dangerously close" to the business failing. Countless times on replies to slashdot articles I've seen people talk about how a company is "dead", "through", "finished" because they go into Chapter 11. This simply isn't the case at all--Chapter 11 gives them extra time for restructuring to pay off their creditors. Yes, it does mean that they're having trouble paying their creditors, but it does NOT in ANY WAY mean that they're liquidating. People should do their homework.
Someone mod this post up. I am really sick and tired of slashdotters who haven't had so much as an introductory law class talking about due process and grounds for a claim, etc. etc. etc...
This poster is correct in the sense that the problem with the contract in question is that the stipulation about the "fine" (which isn't really a fine...but anyway) wasn't made clear enough in the contract. It's like how you can't have something in fine print sign away your house to a rental car company...
The problem is the lack of clarity in the contract, not the concept. Slashdot, wake up, you don't know jack about the law.
Oh, and IANAL.
No, we can't, not in this situation. You're being "fined" (it's not really a fine, you agreed to it) because you violated a provision of a contract. The contract stipulates damages for that violation. Double Jeopardy only refers to the same government prosecuting a person for a criminal act. And yes, that means that if you commit a crime that has both federal and state actions (bank robbery, maybe?) you can be found not guilty by the state but guilty by the feds, in two seperate trials. And it's not double jeopardy--that would only be if the Feds tried you twice.
Of course it's not OK. We would'nt allow a lease company, even if in a contract, to install cameras in your apartment to protect their 'assets' because it's wrong. So is this GPS deal.
Uhh, no. You don't seem to understand that a loan company can put whatever they want in a loan contract and, if you agree to it, it's enforceable unless it's "unconscionable." Meaning that once they give you the cash to buy the house, it's your house, but as a condition of the loan they can do whatever they want. You don't have to accept the loan.
As long as you agreed to it, and it's not unconscionable, you're damn right it's OK. A court would absolutely allow a reasonable monitoring device (like a security system for fire) to be installed in an apartment even if you're leasing it--the lease agreement would say that the landlord had a right to terminate the contract if you started a fire. There's absolutely nothing legally wrong with this company putting GPS in a rental car, as long as they put their intended use for it in the rental agreement.
You're being a paranoid, ignorant slashdotter like most, assuming that personal privacy trumps all laws. Maybe it should, but it doesn't.
Wrong. When you lease your car, the finance company might own the car, but when you buy and finance a car with payments (yes, the majority of car purchases), you own the car. The finance company gets a lien on the car along with a promise to pay a certain number of installments in exchange for a wad of cash with which you buy the car. The lien is a right to sell the car if you violate the loan agreement. The only way they have /any/ power over you is if you (a) stop paying or (b) violate another part of the agreement. And they wouldb't be that you can't remove cameras or other probes from your car and/or house.
The reason you can't have cameras in your house to make sure you don't smoke in bed is because it is your house. They just have the right to sell it, giving you anything left over from what you still owe them, if you miss a payment or violate the loan agreement. Ahh, the mortgage--a beautiful thing.....
I think the "official" difference between DC101 and WHFS is that WHFS caters to 14-year-olds and DC101 caters to 15-year-olds. 98 Rock Baltimore is the way to go.
I'm sorry, I just don't see how this post was modded up to a 5...It's simply wrong. The case against AOL for child porn is /inherently different/ from the napster case, and if you had done any sort of study on the matter you would know that. As discussed in other replies to your post (a thread in which you directly contradicted yourself, no less), the Court's argument is that Napster was created with the sole intent of facilitating copyright violation, whereas AOL was not. This IS important--Sony v. Universal (or the other way around, I forget...it's the Betamax Case) used the precedent that a device (in these cases, a service, but it's essentially the same thing) must have reasonable non-infringing value for it to be legal in the US. Now, while the laws have changed quite a bit (against the people and for the wealthy copyright holders) with the DMCA, that principle remains key to this discussion. Not only does AOL provide tons of non-infringing uses to millions of people, it was not created for the intended purpose of infringement. According to the courts, Napster was. End of story.
Napster should, however, be exonerated because file sharing is fair use--but that's another story altogether.