Now, if the lawyer just goes out for fun and tells the world that you have sex with sheep (and you do)--or the debt collector shows up and breaks your legs, then neither are guilty of extortion. The debt collector is guilty of assault, of course, but the lawyer has committed no crime (that I'm aware of).
Try slander or defamation. Not crimes, but you can still be liable for damages.
If you do find an answer to your question only after a number of searches/asking around and some effort, put some more effort into writing it up on a web page (and telling about it to those you've asked who were interested in the problem but did not quite solve it).
There's nothing useful about that latest TV show or movie you watched or a computer game you played. Why did you spend hours on it, instead of volunteering to fight poverty?
The problem is that the person voluntarily gives up the future use of that knowledge to advance professionally now.
Nobody does any such thing. You give up some vaguely specified rights in exchange for some benefits. This vagueness is then subject to dispute. I think I agreed not to use your proprietary algorithms, you think I agreed not to use library X which I learned on the job. It can even be an honest disagreement, and things are not as clear-cut.
For example, I've seen agreements that say that I give the right to whatever inventions I make "while rendering services to the Company" (paraphrased). I read that "while" as "9-5 Monday-Friday", a corporate droid may read that as "from your first second at the job until you are out the door for good". Everybody tries to derive their own benefit from this vague language. This is what the courts are for.
And like I said before, allowing people to make agreements between themselves is an expression of freedom.
Is allowing people to sign a pact whereupon one becomes another's slave for life and subject to organ harvesting at any whim also an expression of freedom? If you are willing to go this far, I will grant you that. And I'll raise you that breaking agreements upon changing one's mind is no less an expression of freedom!
See, it all just depends on how far you're willing to take your sophistry.
This is actually what turned me off to Randians and the like in the first place, but I digress...
It's possible that if you legalize softer drugs, people would just do them more. There may be a spike in usage, but it will level off. Look at Netherlands.
How can you just claim that YOU are deciding what's right and wrong. How do you know in what way and to what extent your conscience was influenced, from the moment you were born, by parents and society at large - and they, in turn, were influenced by thousands of years of cultural/religious tradition. Christian, if you live in the western world.
You may not like it, but you can't ignore this fact.
Let me guess. This is the microecon. class where they teach you about Adam Smith and explain that in this world the business plan could not possibly work.
Then you take the next course, and realize that laws of supply-demand are all well and good, but we don't have a perfect market, we have government with all sorts of regulations that are not all there to stop fraud - no, many of them are payback to large companies contributing to politicians' campaigns. Simplistic rules no longer apply, that is, they apply instead to the laws instead of the product.:)
Longer hours are a way to complete a project successfully only if you give us all substantial raises.
Re:The Constitution doesn't need amending
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 2
By centralizing all this and making what shouldn't be a federal issue a federal issue, it takes away the entire argument of "if you don't like it, go somewhere else."
That is the best case for federalism (well, in the original sense:) that there could be. It would, of course, be great, but the US is one big country under the ominous federal law, and soon EU will be too, and pretty soon there will be no "somewhere else". Will this happen sooner than space colonists can declare their independence? Not discounting technological progress, sadly, chances are that it will.
Re:Incorporated amendments
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 2
Where is this "incorporated" business described in? All Article V of the Constitution says is how to pass an amendment; once passed, it is as much a part of the Constitution as any other article, section or clause. That's the point of a Constitutional Amendment, as opposed to any other law.
Many government-mandated history books interpret the amendment for "government has the right to use tax dollars for military purposes"
This is going too far. This excuse is not needed. The constitution already states that gov't has the right to use tax monies for the military: Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1, 12-14.
Clauses 15 and 16 (calling up and regulating militias) may be thought of as pertaining to Second Amendment, and inasmuch as you interpret the amendment as "the militia being necessary to the security of free state" as satisfied by the National Guard, then there's something to the spin you describe.
However, I've never seen things such as you describe in the textbooks.
As far as always questioning gov't - I'm 100% behind you.
Can an automatic script perhaps post an addition to every YRO or related story that consists of appropriate Jefferson, Franklin, Martin Niemuller(sp?) and others' appropriate quotes?:)
1st amendment specifically say "Congress shall make no law..." so it applies to gov't. Now 4th says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" - notice that it does not say "by the government".
Slashdot Mirror
Try slander or defamation. Not crimes, but you
can still be liable for damages.
If you do find an answer to your question
only after a number of searches/asking
around and some effort, put some more effort
into writing it up on a web page (and telling
about it to those you've asked who were interested in the problem but did not quite solve
it).
That still leaves 999,999 monkeys
and one free typewriter to get the answer...
Grumpy we didn't get FP, aren't we? :)
A threat of legal action is not blackmail.
You can just threaten to sue, and mention
that the VC will certainly find out about it.
You'd have to pay someone to take your
digital persona - and all the spam with it.
There's nothing useful about that latest
TV show or movie you watched or a computer
game you played. Why did you spend hours
on it, instead of volunteering to fight
poverty?
Nobody does any such thing. You give up
some vaguely specified rights in exchange
for some benefits. This vagueness is then
subject to dispute. I think I agreed not
to use your proprietary algorithms, you think
I agreed not to use library X which I learned
on the job. It can even be an honest disagreement,
and things are not as clear-cut.
For example, I've seen agreements that say
that I give the right to whatever inventions
I make "while rendering services to the Company" (paraphrased). I read that "while" as "9-5 Monday-Friday", a corporate droid may read that as "from
your first second at the job until you are out
the door for good". Everybody tries to derive their own benefit from this vague language. This
is what the courts are for.
And like I said before, allowing people to make agreements between themselves is an expression of freedom.
Is allowing people to sign a pact whereupon
one becomes another's slave for life and
subject to organ harvesting at any whim also
an expression of freedom? If you are willing
to go this far, I will grant you that. And
I'll raise you that breaking agreements
upon changing one's mind is no less an expression
of freedom!
See, it all just depends on how far you're willing
to take your sophistry.
This is actually what turned me off to Randians
and the like in the first place, but I digress...
Yes, if you want to keep productivity high
it's much more efficient to get up
and look for your coworker every time
you need to ask them something.
They didn't put up with opium growers cause
they wanted a monopoly.
Tou-fucking-che!
It's possible that if you legalize softer drugs,
people would just do them more. There may be
a spike in usage, but it will level off. Look
at Netherlands.
Few points.
1. Have you read the Old Testament? There's plenty of God-approved violence and atrocities there.
2. Have you read the New Testament? Does Jesus sound at all like Jerry Falwell?
They'll just be killing each other
off for other reasons...
How can you just claim that YOU are
deciding what's right and wrong. How do
you know in what way and to what extent your conscience was influenced, from the moment
you were born, by parents and society at large - and they, in turn, were influenced by thousands
of years of cultural/religious tradition. Christian, if you live in the western world.
You may not like it, but you can't ignore this
fact.
You forget that Duke's law school also has
PROFESSORS.
Let me guess. This is the microecon.
:)
class where they teach you about
Adam Smith and explain that in this world
the business plan could not possibly work.
Then you take the next course, and realize
that laws of supply-demand are all well and
good, but we don't have a perfect market,
we have government with all sorts of regulations
that are not all there to stop fraud - no, many
of them are payback to large companies
contributing to politicians' campaigns.
Simplistic rules no longer apply, that is,
they apply instead to the laws instead
of the product.
Longer hours are a way to complete
a project successfully only if you
give us all substantial raises.
That is the best case for federalism
(well, in the original sense:) that
there could be. It would, of course,
be great, but the US is one big country
under the ominous federal law, and soon
EU will be too, and pretty soon there
will be no "somewhere else". Will this
happen sooner than space colonists can
declare their independence? Not discounting
technological progress, sadly, chances are
that it will.
Where is this "incorporated" business
described in? All Article V of the Constitution
says is how to pass an amendment; once passed,
it is as much a part of the Constitution
as any other article, section or clause. That's
the point of a Constitutional Amendment,
as opposed to any other law.
Many government-mandated history books interpret the amendment for "government has the right to use tax dollars for military purposes"
This is going too far. This excuse is not
needed. The constitution already states that
gov't has the right to use tax monies
for the military: Article I, Section 8,
Clauses 1, 12-14.
Clauses 15 and 16 (calling up and
regulating militias) may be thought of
as pertaining to Second Amendment, and inasmuch
as you interpret the amendment
as "the militia being necessary to the
security of free state" as satisfied by
the National Guard, then there's something
to the spin you describe.
However, I've never seen things such as
you describe in the textbooks.
As far as always questioning gov't -
I'm 100% behind you.
Speaking of which, does anyone run
a (regularly updated) list of contests
that are coming up? Like recent (more
or less) Google challenge, etc.
Can an automatic script perhaps :)
post an addition to every YRO
or related story that consists
of appropriate Jefferson, Franklin,
Martin Niemuller(sp?) and others'
appropriate quotes?
1st amendment specifically say "Congress shall
make no law..." so it applies to gov't. Now
4th says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" - notice that it does not
say "by the government".
Wow! People apologizing for flaming each /. What's next - MPAA GPL's all
other on
its creations?