Stop making up law. Nobody would ever be a cop if they had pay lawsuits. Officers have qualified immunity from lawsuit (plaintiff must show bad faith) and most cities must pay their legal fees/judgments under the municipal codes. I worked for LA's city attorney, in their police lit unit, so I know of what I speak. 42 USC 1983 doesn't ban cities or unions for paying legal bills (it would probably be a 10th Amendment violation of it did).
Do you get imprisoned for making mistakes at work? This would be a great way to ensure you had no cops, or cops that don't do anything for fear of prison! Should the Miranda officers have gone to prison for following the law at the time, only to have new law created out of the ether?
42 USC 1983 authorizes suits for deprivation of civil rights. Johnnie Cochran made a fortune doing it. Of course, police have qualified immunity from suit, so you sue the city., i.e., taxpayers, for police misconduct.
But you can't criminally prosecute police for every little misstep. Nobody would want to be a cop.
In all the organizations I've worked in, IT is usually, but not always, the lowest common denominator, i.e., low pay and low training. This is especially true in academia. Your opinion of IT is a lot higher than my experience has been.
And BTW, where is the HIPPA-violative privacy information in employee work schedules?
for 30 years. New efficiency levels, solar paint, you name it, every time we're on the cusp of solving the energy problem. Every time, I get excited, and yet nothing ever really seems to come from it, to quote Tom Petty.
>
So call me jaded, but I'm going to wait until I see shipping products before I try to kick the football again, Lucy.
According to an article on www.businessinsider.com, "Paul and Iasia Ceglia are charged with 12 counts each of fourth-degree grand larceny and one count each of first-degree scheme to defraud" in what looks like a not very clever scam to get $200,000. That would destroy his credibility and therefore any chance to collect in case (2).
No, character evidence is inadmissible, even in civil trials (unless defendant opens the door via testimony, i.e., "I'm a good person and would never fake e-mails.").
IAALBNYLSDNROTALA (I Am A Lawyer But Not Your Lawyer So Don't Rely On This As Legal Advice)
That's rich. A government that is big enough to give companies like Apple all the IP rights they want is big enough to take them away from the rest of us.
Actually, the Constitution guarantees both Apple and you certain rights. But if you only want yours protected, you're a hypocrite - and short sighted. Once the camel's nose is under the tent, he doesn't care whose sandwich he eats.
The thing is, though, once I buy the product, it isn't Apple's anymore, and I can and will do with it as I please.
The DMCA or other IP laws might disagree. Ignore laws at your own peril. Flaunt them publicly, and invite even more peril. If you're really willing to test your dogma at the risk of prosecution or lawsuit, good for you. But I'll bet you're just the kind of guy who would complain if his boss read his e-mail on work servers, arguing for the privacy of your proprietary words.
If you're not an Apple user, why do you care what they do, officious boy? If you are, you bought it eyes wide open. In the latter case, you're like the person who buys cigs with the big nanny warning label, then sues after he gets cancer.
Like IP or not, the Constitution speaks to patent and copyright. I happen to believe that IP laws can, but not always do in practice, increase innovation. As an Apple stockholder, I'd prefer people don't hack their products, and that Steve Jobs decides how Apple software will be designed. You might disagree, and think other people's intellectual property should be "free," but it doesn't make you a good guy, except, apparently here on Mod Abuse Central, where I got modded "flamebait" for daring to not toe the party line. Real flame there!
So no, you're entitled to your views, but imposing them on someone else does not make you good. It makes you kind of officious actually. And people who modded me flamebait for saying it, you are definitely not good.
-"Counselor, did your client ever tell you he was innocent?"
-"Nope"
Cute, but of course, not analogous to claiming, after you've admitted guilt in court, "I told my lawyer about a defense and he didn't use it."
Lawyers do have a right to defend themselves from claims of malpractice, unless you have some new case law I haven't seen that was passed in the last week; I've been pretty busy lately.
Lawyers have a duty of confidentiality, period.
No, it isn't "period." There is a well-settled crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege, in this case, arguably committing a fraud against the court.
I'm a social science ("cough") major, and even I blanched at the mention of "rocket fuel" in the article. Nice assumption. I read about successful ion propulsion experiments years ago. Where have these guys been? I mean, it isn't rocket science, er...brain surgery.
Essentially saying his attorney F'd up. The attorney has a right to defend himself against false charges of malpractice. Otherwise, every single criminal defense attorney who lost a case could be sued with no defense. I think the theory here is, lawyers have a duty of confidentiality about what they are told, but no such duty about what they weren't told, and no duty to further propagate lies clients tell them. On the contrary, there is a crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege.
IAALBNYLSDROTALA (I Am A Lawyer But Not Your Lawyer So Don't Rely On This As Legal Advice).
I'd been thinking of re-watching DS9, which I had never watched in first-run, just on DVD years after cancellation. The finale was lame, like on Enterprise though.
I honestly don't understand the nerd hate on Enterprise. Sometimes I just think it's nerds being nerds, i.e., opposition to the T'Pol hotness. Picture Conan O'Brien doing his nerd voice, shaking his fingers, "Ohhh, must not have nudity on Star Trek, violates the canon!"
I loved Enterprise, except for the ending, and was sorry it was cancelled.
Our revolution wasn't class-based, because in America, there is the opportunity for class mobility
Go look up the stats on the recently.
I have. Those who work and save for their retirements are doing great. Put away a couple hundred a month for 25 years in a Roth, and you too can retire with a seven-figure nestegg. Those who stayed in the market and kept contributing are doing fine. There's plenty of opportunity out there if you want to put in the time and work.
Americans, unlike Europeans, don't hate rich greedy bastards. They just hate when they accrue their wealth and power in nefarious ways inconsistent with real capitalists, i.e., crony capitalism. In fact, the Tea Partiers, mocked as simpletons by the left, are ironically, quite clear about such a nuanced position. They didn't run on "no more rich!" They ran on, "no more bailouts!" IOW, no more crony capitalism, not no more capitalism.
No ones hates the rich for being rich, they hate them for how they got the money and how they abuse everyone with it. If you did not notice that is how they got those bailouts.
I think you just restated what I said, other than slandering all rich people for what a few crony capitalists did. Did Apple and IBM and Oracle steal their money and get bailouts?
The tea partiers are not that smart, they ran on "This is what the talking head told me to say, no more brown people".
Oh please, nice slander, Mr. run-on sentence. That "Tea Partiers are racist line" is really getting old. Total bullshit.
in 2010, and that Bush was not a small-government fiscal conservative. There's a reason the Tea Party freshmen members of Congress are feuding with the old guard GOP.
And at least TARP was paid back. Don't look for that with Government Motors or especially the housing GSEs.
I think murder laws are stupid. So come over here and let's discuss it like real anarchists.
In a civil society, people can't pick and choose what laws they follow. An essential element of living in a republic means you submit to laws, even when your side loses, not just when it wins.
Our revolution wasn't class-based, because in America, there is the opportunity for class mobility unlike in 1789 and present-day Europe. Two-thirds of the Forbes 500 did not inherit their wealth, BTW.
Americans, unlike Europeans, don't hate rich greedy bastards. They just hate when they accrue their wealth and power in nefarious ways inconsistent with real capitalists, i.e., crony capitalism. In fact, the Tea Partiers, mocked as simpletons by the left, are ironically, quite clear about such a nuanced position. They didn't run on "no more rich!" They ran on, "no more bailouts!" IOW, no more crony capitalism, not no more capitalism.
Any more than a fraud = a contract. True conservatives want the crony capitalism cut off, because capitalism means taking risk, risk to fail, not be bailed out by Big Nanny. The Tea Partiers, while just casual, often first-time political participants, do understand this. No bailouts or special deals for cronies, like Obama's UAW peeps. This is what they ran on and why they won. To suggest Obama's corruption of the judiciary somehow lessens that message takes some seriously contorted reasoning.
I'm not saying there aren't Republicans who have corporate cronies. I'm saying they aren't real conservatives. The current tension between the recently-sworn Tea Party members of Congress and the GOP old guard is evidence of this. Power corrupts. Which is why we should Amend the Constitution for term limits.
Slashdot Mirror
Stop making up law. Nobody would ever be a cop if they had pay lawsuits. Officers have qualified immunity from lawsuit (plaintiff must show bad faith) and most cities must pay their legal fees/judgments under the municipal codes. I worked for LA's city attorney, in their police lit unit, so I know of what I speak. 42 USC 1983 doesn't ban cities or unions for paying legal bills (it would probably be a 10th Amendment violation of it did).
Do you get imprisoned for making mistakes at work? This would be a great way to ensure you had no cops, or cops that don't do anything for fear of prison! Should the Miranda officers have gone to prison for following the law at the time, only to have new law created out of the ether?
42 USC 1983 authorizes suits for deprivation of civil rights. Johnnie Cochran made a fortune doing it. Of course, police have qualified immunity from suit, so you sue the city., i.e., taxpayers, for police misconduct.
But you can't criminally prosecute police for every little misstep. Nobody would want to be a cop.
In all the organizations I've worked in, IT is usually, but not always, the lowest common denominator, i.e., low pay and low training. This is especially true in academia. Your opinion of IT is a lot higher than my experience has been.
And BTW, where is the HIPPA-violative privacy information in employee work schedules?
for 30 years. New efficiency levels, solar paint, you name it, every time we're on the cusp of solving the energy problem. Every time, I get excited, and yet nothing ever really seems to come from it, to quote Tom Petty.
>
So call me jaded, but I'm going to wait until I see shipping products before I try to kick the football again, Lucy.
According to an article on www.businessinsider.com, "Paul and Iasia Ceglia are charged with 12 counts each of fourth-degree grand larceny and one count each of first-degree scheme to defraud" in what looks like a not very clever scam to get $200,000. That would destroy his credibility and therefore any chance to collect in case (2).
No, character evidence is inadmissible, even in civil trials (unless defendant opens the door via testimony, i.e., "I'm a good person and would never fake e-mails.").
IAALBNYLSDNROTALA (I Am A Lawyer But Not Your Lawyer So Don't Rely On This As Legal Advice)
ought to be enough for anybody.
That's rich. A government that is big enough to give companies like Apple all the IP rights they want is big enough to take them away from the rest of us.
Actually, the Constitution guarantees both Apple and you certain rights. But if you only want yours protected, you're a hypocrite - and short sighted. Once the camel's nose is under the tent, he doesn't care whose sandwich he eats.
The thing is, though, once I buy the product, it isn't Apple's anymore, and I can and will do with it as I please.
The DMCA or other IP laws might disagree. Ignore laws at your own peril. Flaunt them publicly, and invite even more peril. If you're really willing to test your dogma at the risk of prosecution or lawsuit, good for you. But I'll bet you're just the kind of guy who would complain if his boss read his e-mail on work servers, arguing for the privacy of your proprietary words.
If you're not an Apple user, why do you care what they do, officious boy? If you are, you bought it eyes wide open. In the latter case, you're like the person who buys cigs with the big nanny warning label, then sues after he gets cancer.
Not analogous. Try again.
Like IP or not, the Constitution speaks to patent and copyright. I happen to believe that IP laws can, but not always do in practice, increase innovation. As an Apple stockholder, I'd prefer people don't hack their products, and that Steve Jobs decides how Apple software will be designed. You might disagree, and think other people's intellectual property should be "free," but it doesn't make you a good guy, except, apparently here on Mod Abuse Central, where I got modded "flamebait" for daring to not toe the party line. Real flame there!
So no, you're entitled to your views, but imposing them on someone else does not make you good. It makes you kind of officious actually. And people who modded me flamebait for saying it, you are definitely not good.
I've found that surfing for pr0n on my school network is amazingly fast, er, throughputy, or whatever the adjective is.
A job well done, sir!
-"Counselor, did your client ever tell you he was innocent?"
-"Nope"
Cute, but of course, not analogous to claiming, after you've admitted guilt in court, "I told my lawyer about a defense and he didn't use it."
Lawyers do have a right to defend themselves from claims of malpractice, unless you have some new case law I haven't seen that was passed in the last week; I've been pretty busy lately.
Lawyers have a duty of confidentiality, period.
No, it isn't "period." There is a well-settled crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege, in this case, arguably committing a fraud against the court.
Please stop impersonating a lawyer.
I'm a social science ("cough") major, and even I blanched at the mention of "rocket fuel" in the article. Nice assumption. I read about successful ion propulsion experiments years ago. Where have these guys been? I mean, it isn't rocket science, er...brain surgery.
You're pro-open source, so that makes you a "good guy"? I like chocolate, you like vanilla, ergo, I am good, you are bad.
Good for you that you believe in open source, but do we have to make it a religion?
Essentially saying his attorney F'd up. The attorney has a right to defend himself against false charges of malpractice. Otherwise, every single criminal defense attorney who lost a case could be sued with no defense. I think the theory here is, lawyers have a duty of confidentiality about what they are told, but no such duty about what they weren't told, and no duty to further propagate lies clients tell them. On the contrary, there is a crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege.
IAALBNYLSDROTALA (I Am A Lawyer But Not Your Lawyer So Don't Rely On This As Legal Advice).
After seeing the agent in charge of Gonzalez, now I'm thinking there might be some truth...out there.
I'd been thinking of re-watching DS9, which I had never watched in first-run, just on DVD years after cancellation. The finale was lame, like on Enterprise though.
I honestly don't understand the nerd hate on Enterprise. Sometimes I just think it's nerds being nerds, i.e., opposition to the T'Pol hotness. Picture Conan O'Brien doing his nerd voice, shaking his fingers, "Ohhh, must not have nudity on Star Trek, violates the canon!"
I loved Enterprise, except for the ending, and was sorry it was cancelled.
What right are we referring to, the right to make threats? Does anyone really believe that has First Amendment protection, or even that it should?
I'm pretty damned pro-First Amendment, but c'mon people...YRO should involve actual infringement of rights, not well-settled exceptions thereto.
Sign that creed on your next tax return in lieu of a check.
Our revolution wasn't class-based, because in America, there is the opportunity for class mobility
Go look up the stats on the recently.
I have. Those who work and save for their retirements are doing great. Put away a couple hundred a month for 25 years in a Roth, and you too can retire with a seven-figure nestegg. Those who stayed in the market and kept contributing are doing fine. There's plenty of opportunity out there if you want to put in the time and work.
Americans, unlike Europeans, don't hate rich greedy bastards. They just hate when they accrue their wealth and power in nefarious ways inconsistent with real capitalists, i.e., crony capitalism. In fact, the Tea Partiers, mocked as simpletons by the left, are ironically, quite clear about such a nuanced position. They didn't run on "no more rich!" They ran on, "no more bailouts!" IOW, no more crony capitalism, not no more capitalism.
No ones hates the rich for being rich, they hate them for how they got the money and how they abuse everyone with it. If you did not notice that is how they got those bailouts.
I think you just restated what I said, other than slandering all rich people for what a few crony capitalists did. Did Apple and IBM and Oracle steal their money and get bailouts?
The tea partiers are not that smart, they ran on "This is what the talking head told me to say, no more brown people".
Oh please, nice slander, Mr. run-on sentence. That "Tea Partiers are racist line" is really getting old. Total bullshit.
in 2010, and that Bush was not a small-government fiscal conservative. There's a reason the Tea Party freshmen members of Congress are feuding with the old guard GOP.
And at least TARP was paid back. Don't look for that with Government Motors or especially the housing GSEs.
But thanks for playing.
I think murder laws are stupid. So come over here and let's discuss it like real anarchists.
In a civil society, people can't pick and choose what laws they follow. An essential element of living in a republic means you submit to laws, even when your side loses, not just when it wins.
Our revolution wasn't class-based, because in America, there is the opportunity for class mobility unlike in 1789 and present-day Europe. Two-thirds of the Forbes 500 did not inherit their wealth, BTW.
Americans, unlike Europeans, don't hate rich greedy bastards. They just hate when they accrue their wealth and power in nefarious ways inconsistent with real capitalists, i.e., crony capitalism. In fact, the Tea Partiers, mocked as simpletons by the left, are ironically, quite clear about such a nuanced position. They didn't run on "no more rich!" They ran on, "no more bailouts!" IOW, no more crony capitalism, not no more capitalism.
Any more than a fraud = a contract. True conservatives want the crony capitalism cut off, because capitalism means taking risk, risk to fail, not be bailed out by Big Nanny. The Tea Partiers, while just casual, often first-time political participants, do understand this. No bailouts or special deals for cronies, like Obama's UAW peeps. This is what they ran on and why they won. To suggest Obama's corruption of the judiciary somehow lessens that message takes some seriously contorted reasoning.
I'm not saying there aren't Republicans who have corporate cronies. I'm saying they aren't real conservatives. The current tension between the recently-sworn Tea Party members of Congress and the GOP old guard is evidence of this. Power corrupts. Which is why we should Amend the Constitution for term limits.