Sure, GPS only gives you position. But if I take a reading at one point, get my position, and then walk a couple of hundred feet, and get my position there, I can use the two position readings to figure out directions.
For those of you who live in the US, you can DO SOMETHING about this. Contact your Senators! I just did, and it took about 3 minutes total. They all have online comment submission pages, which are available from http://www.senate.gov/.
Don't just bitch about it on Slashdot. Bitch about it where it really matters. Bitch about it to the people who can actually stop this from passing.
From 17 USCS 504(c), which sets the statutory damage scheme for copyright infringement:
"In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $ 150,000."
Yes, the number may seem excessive to you, but they are simply asking for what they are entitled to ask for under the law. Of course, if this actually goes to trial, they will not only have to PROVE that the infringement was committed wilfully, they will also have to CONVINCE the judge ("the court, in its discretion may") that such a high level of damages are appropriate.
If the states want to continue doing this, then let them. The issue with rights is that you shouldn't force them to do it by withholding federal funds. That's called blackmail.
Blackmail it may be, but it's completely constitutional. Congress can't force the states to do anything, so, for example, the Feds can't force your local Sheriff to provide copies of the records of his investigations over to the FBI. However, they CAN condition grants to State Governments under the Taxing & Spending Clause of the Constitution. So, instead of just ordering it (which they can't do), Congress instead drafts legislation that says to the States "You can have grants for [Homeland Security/Highway Construction/Etc.], BUT in return, you have to do X, Y, and Z. As long as X, Y, and Z are related to the purpose of the grant (and the "related to" requirement can be pretty tenuous, because Congress just states the relationship, as they see it, in the preamble to the law), the requirement is perfectly constitutional.
For those of you old enough to remember the national speed limit (55!), this is how it was done. Reagan and Congress basically conditioned highway grant funding on state legislation mandating 55 MPH speed limits. States aren't going to turn that money away, as it is too important to keeping the state economy (and therefore, tax base) moving.
I don't know if it's normal in other investigations.
It's the same with investigations into attorney misconduct by most state bars. The "witnesses" are required to keep the investigation absolutely confidential, especially from the target of the investigation.
Just to clarify here, the Federal Court system has three levels. The District Courts are your trial courts. Every case has to start in a District Court. The losing party at the trial court level is entitled to one appeal as of right; that is, they are guaranteed one appeal if they choose to take it. Not everyone takes it, as appellate lawyers are expensive.
Your appeal goes to the Circuit Court that covers your region of the country. There are 13 total. 12 Regional (11 are numbered, 1 through 11, and then the 12th is the D.C. Circuit). For example, in this case, the Ninth Circuit, which covers the entire Pacific coast, as well as Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, and Montana. The Ninth Circuit tends to be much more liberal in their decisions than other circuits. For reference, the Fourth Circuit, which covers Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, and the Carolinas, tends to be very conservative in its decisions. In addition, you have the Federal Circuit, which is the only federal circuit whose jurisdiction is not based on the location of the trial court, but instead on the subject matter of the case. They get ALL of the nation's patent law cases, among other subjects.
The Ninth Circuit is also the largest federal circuit court, with 47 judges on the circuit. By comparison, the Second Circuit (New York, Connecticut, and Vermont), which is the next largest, has 23 judges.
District Courts are required to follow the decisions of the Circuit Court that their cases are appealed to. So, for example, Ninth Circuit decisions are binding in California, but are only "persuasive" in Maryland, which is required to follow the decisions of the Fourth Circuit.
Therefore, if two Circuits look at the same issue and come down the wrong way, then the law on an issue changes depending on where you are in the Country. It's far better for the law, at least at a federal level, to be consistent and not vary depeending on where you are. That's why the Supreme Court is more likely to take a case resulting from a Circuit split.
This article gives a bit more detail about the situation that may make things a bit clearer.
"The jet, a chartered Cessna Citation, was landing Dec. 29 with six people aboard when a green light beam struck the windshield three times at about 3,000 feet, according to court documents. The pilot and co-pilot were temporarily blinded but were able to land the plane safely. "
Now, he may not have been trying to blind the pilots, but this guy had to realize that that is a possibility. Especially given his profession: he tests fiber-optic cables - with lasers, I assume, since it says the laser was purchased for his job AND he is quoted by police in the USA Today article as saying "Don't point it at your eyes. It could blind you" when the laser pointer was brought out during questioning.
The article says he hit the cockpit of the plane not once, but three times (!) with the laser. Stargazing my ass. He was seeing if he could really do what was in the news reports. And then, after hearing on the news that the Feds were taking this VERY seriously, he goes and points the beam at a helicopter. Not exactly the brightest bulb in the lamp, eh? A distant airplane, ok, maybe... maybe if you're a dumbass... I might believe you when you say you initially thought it was a star. A helicopter, close enough for the police to shine a spotlight on your house?
One more thing to note: Everybody is going nuts over the potential penalties in this case. 25 years and $500,000 is the maximum penalty. Keep in mind that this all has to go before a judge and possibly a jury, depending on whether his attorney thinks he'll be a sympathetic defendant for a jury. It is very rare in criminal law for a defendant to get the maximum penalty. More than likely, this guy will get less than a year in jail out of it all.
My opinion on this? This guy is one of the biggest dumbasses on the planet and probably deserves some jail time. 25 years is too much here, but some time behind bars is probably a good idea, both as a lesson for this guy and as a lesson for the "consequences ignorant" folks out there.
At least in the US, the level of force used to deter intrusion must be relative to the threat.
What this means is that you can't use lethal force to protect property (although, as far as I know, it is permissible to use the THREAT of lethal force to protect property).
There is a classic case used in Tort textbooks in law school about a guy who basically set up the shotgun-tied-to-the-doorknob trap (mentioned by the grand-parent in this thread) in his cabin to prevent trespassers (who had repeatedly broken in and stole his stuff in the past) from breaking in and stealing his stuff. Trespasser broke in and got his leg nearly shot off (serious injury), and he sued the landowner who set up the trap. Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa, 1971). The court basically laid out the principle that human life is more important than property, so you can't use lethal force (defined as "likely to cause death or serious injury") solely to protect property.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff trespasser against the defendant landowner for $20,000 actual and $10,000 punitive damages, and the appellate court affirmed it. I'm not aware of any state in the US that doesn't follow the principles outlined in this case.
So, in response to the parent's conclusion that no jury would reward the trespasser, it is very possible that not only would the jury reward the trespasser, the decision would be upheld on appeal.
Note that this involved a situation in which the spring gun was used to protect ONLY property. This case has no bearing on one's ability to use force to defend oneself or one's family from harm. Nearly every state allows the use of lethal force in that situation.
Disclaimer: This is just commentary on the law as I understand it. It is not legal advice. If you are looking at Slashdot posts for legal advice, you already need a much better lawyer than I am ;)
He's telling those 200 THOUSAND voters that they should just not have bothered.
Right. Or, perhaps, we could actually look at the facts:
"Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart said in a telephone interview that Kerry had concluded there were not enough provisional ballots in Ohio, estimated at around 150,000, to overcome Bush's current margin of 136,000 votes, even if he were to win the lion's share of them."
www.washingtonpost.com, The Washington Post, Kerry Concedes Defeat; Bush Wins Second Term, November 3, 2004.
Later, in the same article:
"With nearly all the votes counted, Bush led 51 to 49 percent in Ohio. Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell (R) originally estimated that there would be 175,000 provisional ballots by the time the counties finish their tabulations, but later calculations reduced that figure to between 150,000 and 155,000,. Kerry's campaign did not dispute the estimate."
Realistically, Kerry would need 136,000 of those 155,000 provisional ballots, a margin of 88%, to be BOTH valid AND for him. That is, at best, a statistical improbability, as you would have to assume that nearly all of the provisional ballots were from Kerry voters who were improperly turned away. Or, to put it more bluntly, only Kerry voters were unable or unwilling to follow the simple instructions on where and how to vote. You may be willing to make that assumption. I am not.
Well, I purchased the extended warranty on my XBox when I bought it, because I am Entropy Man (tm). Electronics randomly fail around me. Hard drive? Failed in two weeks. My stereo system? One week. My printer? Didn't work when I got it home. My scanner? Didn't work when I got it home. My XBox? Lasted one week, then the DVD drive failed. Honestly, all I do is hook these things up and use as directed! It's not like I'm throwing them around, or beating on them with sticks, or something.
Fortunately, I realize I have these evil powers, and so on all of these items, I purchased the extended warranty. When it went bad, I just took it back to the store where I purchased it, and they replaced it. Mayhaps there is a less to be learned for this Plaintiff. Sadly, quality will cost you a bit more.
Well, I am a young lawyer (but this isn't legal advice). What the parent is talking about is the peppercorn theory. It's a fundamental principal of Western contract law that basically means if you agree to sell a house for a peppercorn because you REALLY wanted that peppercorn, you are in a binding contract. There is no requirement that the property exchanged, be it money, objects, ideas, etc., be of actual equivalent value. You get what you agreed to take, nothing more. All legal capacity issues aside, if you sell your SUV for an acorn because you think (through no fault of the seller) that the acorn is worth it, you're bound. Have fun with that acorn:)
Sorry, this is a bit lengthy, but I know at least a few of you are interested in what actually happened with the SJG case. Steve Jackson Games, Inc., v. United States Secret Serv., 816 F. Supp. 432 (W.D. Tex. 1993).
From the Court's factual findings: "Henry Kluepfel, Director of Network Security Technology (an affiliate Bell Company), was advised a sensitive, proprietary computer document of Bell South relating to Bell's "911 program" had been made available to the public on [a BBS in Illinois]... Around February 6, 1990, Kluepfel learned that the 911 document was available on a computer billboard entitled "Phoenix" which was operated by Loyd Blankenship in Austin, Texas... Prior to February 26, 1990, Kluepfel learned that Blankenship not only operated the Phoenix bulletin board, but he was a user of the Illinois bulletin board wherein the 911 document was first disclosed, was an employee of Steve Jackson Games, Inc., and a user of the Steve Jackson Games, Inc.'s bulletin board "Illuminati." Kluepfel's investigation also determined that Blankenship was a "co-sysop" of the Illuminati bulletin board, which means that he had the ability to review anything on the Illuminati bulletin board and, importantly, maybe able to delete anything on the system. Blankenship's bulletin board Phoenix had published "hacker" information and had solicited "hacker" information relating to passwords, ostensibly to be analyzed in some type of decryption scheme."
Kluepfel reported this to the Secret Service. Kluepfel had a positive history with the Secret Service, in that he had assisted them in prior investigations. The Secret Service agent handling the investigation, Agent Foley, contacted the local U.S. Attorney's Office and had the local U.S. Attorney file for a warrant to search and seize SJG's hardware in order to get evidence about Bell South's 911 file.
"The only information Agent Foley had regarding Steve Jackson Games, Inc. and Steve Jackson was that he thought this was a company that put out games, but he also reviewed a printout of Illuminati on February 25, 1990, which read, "Greetings, Mortal! You have entered the secret computer system of the Illuminati, the on-line home of the world's oldest and largest secret conspiracy. 5124474449300/1200/2400BAUD fronted by Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. Fnord." The evidence in this case strongly suggests Agent Foley, without any further investigation, misconstrued this information to believe the Illuminati bulletin board was similar in purpose to Blankenship's Phoenix bulletin board, which provided information to and was used by "hackers." Agent Foley believed, in good faith, at the time of the execution of his affidavit on February 28, 1990, there was probable cause to believe Blankenship had the 911 Bell South document [**12] and information relating to the decryption scheme stored in his computer at home or perhaps in computers, disks, or in the Illuminati bulletin board at his place of employment at Steve Jackson Games, Inc.; that these materials were involved in criminal activities; and that Blankenship had the ability to delete any information stored on any of these computers and/or disks."
"The only information Agent Foley had regarding Steve Jackson Games, Inc. and Steve Jackson was that he thought this was a company that put out games, but he also reviewed a printout of Illuminati on February 25, 1990, which read, "Greetings, Mortal! You have entered the secret computer system of the Illuminati, the on-line home of the world's oldest and largest secret conspiracy. 5124474449300/1200/2400BAUD fronted by Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. Fnord." The evidence in this case strongly suggests Agent Foley, without any further investigation, misconstrued this information to believe the Illuminati bulletin board was similar in purpose to Blankenship's Phoenix bulletin board, which provided information to and was used by "hackers.""
That last bit is where the court found fault with the government's case. The Secret Service basically acted on Foley's mis
"Speaking of which, why weren't any aircraft parts found at the Pentagon? I thought a plane hit it. Nobody saw the plane, and nobody was in that section of the building, but REALLY, a plane DID hit it. Not a missile..."
I live in the Washington, D.C., area, and I have several good friends who were in the area on 9/11. One of them watched the plane fly OVER HIS CAR to crash into the Pentagon. He was close enough to feel the heat from the explosion. Federal authorities ordered he and the other people on the road to leave their cars on foot and come back later to retrieve them. Another friend was at National Airport and watched the crash. Nobody saw the plane? I think what you meant to say is that "Nobody *filmed* the plane" If a nobody like me who just happens to live in the area knows several trustworthy people who saw it, plenty of people saw it.
(I apologize in advance for the rant here, but this really pissed me off).
Nobody was in that section of the building? I work with people who lost family members in the resulting crash. I know people who still bear the scars from burns they received helping others escape the flames. One hundred and twenty-five people lost their lives on the ground. Nobody? Congratulations. You've just told the grieving widow in my wife's office that her dead husband was "nobody." Not only is your post simply wrong, it's offensive. Get a clue about the facts before you post.
"And all Bush has to do to swing it back is come up with an "October Surprise" - say, another "terrorist incident" conveniently planned and agent-provocateured into "Al Qaeda" by some associates of Ariel Sharon."
Normally I ignore most of this political BS. Slashdot seems to have a higher than average concentration of far-rightists and far-lefties. However, the poster above went a bit over the line by accusing Bush of treason with no proof or even reason to suspect. You destroy your own credibility with such outlandish claims. I may not like Michael Moore's methods and I probably disagree with many of his conclusions, but at least he had source material to rely on.
I have to agree with the parent's last point: The political impact of this movie will probably be pretty low. Recent polls have shown a historically low number of currently undecided voters out there. In addition, in my observation, most "undecided" voters are really just voters who have made up their mind who to vote for, but just won't come clean on it.
So, the impact of this movie? Those who already hate GW Bush will be really riled up and angry, and will vote for John Kerry even more stridently. Of course, it doesn't matter how hard you press the Kerry button, or how forcefully you jam your ballot into the box, you still only get one vote.
But, then again, maybe he will actually accomplish something: Democrats are historically "lazy" voters (in that there are often more TOTAL democrat voters in the US, but a much smaller percentage of them compared to Republicans actually vote), and this movie may motivate more Democrafts to actually get out and vote. It's possible this move may have that impact, and given how close this election is expected to be, that may be enough.
Try reading the opinion again. Not "any time for any reason." The police need "reasonable suspicion" that you were involved in criminal activity. That was present here. Remember, "reasonable" is going to be looked at as an objective standard. The cop can't just say "He looked suspicious." He's got to be able to state specific reasons why he suspected that you were involved in a crime.
Guess somebody didn't RTFA. The case doesn't say they can get your identification papers. It says you have to give the police your name. That's it, just your name. Explain to me how that simple requirement requires a tinfoil hat? Hell, you have to wear a nametag to work at McDonalds...
"How much more is the metro in your area for a week? Is it less than the total cost of owning a car? Obviously, you need to have a car to get to certain areas the metro doesn't go, but if I could, I would ditch two of the three cars me and my girlfriend currently own."
Well, at most, the Metro should cost you $25.00 a week here, because that's the weekly pass cost. For my wife, she could keep it under that ($2.15 each way per day = $21.50), and the time would be about the same as driving. Unfortunately, she can get a week's worth of gas for around $15 for her car (well, at least she can as long as gas stays under $2 per gallon...), so it's just not worth it to Metro (unless, obviously, gas prices keep climbing).
The Department of Justice sues for damages all the time. They are the primary enforcement arm for every government agency except for the SEC (which has its own attorneys). Many violations of federal regulatory statutes are for civil penalties rather for criminal penalties. Here, the bill authorizes penalties AND restitution to the artist (with an offset for anything recovered by the artist in their own suit).
As for the distinction between civil courts and criminal courts, there's really no such thing. The procedures are different (burden of proof, speedy trial guarantee, etc.), but they are the same courts and the same judges.
Then again, you do cite a particular problem: The courts are already crowded, especially federal courts (where the DoJ would primarily prosecute these violations), because they are loaded with federal drug cases.
"and don't try to kid me that Americans even think of using public transport in most states"
It's this attitude that bothers me. In many cases it's not that we don't choose to use mass transit, it's that we CAN'T choose to use mass transit. Europeans are generally blessed in that nearly every major city in Europe has efficient mass transit. Europe also has a much higher population density, which results in mass transit being more efficient in non-urban areas as well.
In the U.S., however, the population is much more spread out. I currently live in the Washington, D.C. suburbs, where subway and bus lines are convenient, and I use them when I can (I am very fortunate in that I live about a mile from my office and can actually walk to work). Only crazy people and those whose office is too distant from a metro station actually drive into the city.
An interesting note, here, however, is that it is actually more economical for my wife to drive to work rather than to metro, even though there is a train station within a couple of blocks of each end of the trip and the trip takes about the same time each way. The cost of the metro for a week is not less than the cost of gas and parking. Why is this? I wish I knew. Fixing this problem would make mass transit a much more attractive solution.
However, in redneck America (rural Michigan) where I grew up, it was twenty miles to the nearest grocery store. Mass transit is nonexistent for a reason: The population is so spread out that it's simply not economical to establish a mass transit system. A sizable percentage of Americans live in locations with similar problems.
Now, with regard to the Maryland and Virginia residents around me who spend three hours in their Ford Battlecruiser or Toyota Juggernaught to get to work when they could have hopped the bus or the train within a block or two of their house... I have no excuse for them. I assume they are mentally incompetent and have too much money, as they seem to be throwing it away on gas and parking. If they are the problem you are referring to, then by all means, flame away. They suck.
A couple of points: 1)A contract is an agreement that the parties have agreed has the force of law. This means that if one party has breached the agreement, the other party can turn to the courts for a remedy.
2) There is a doctrine called "material breach." There's a lot more to it than this, but for our purposes, it basically says "no harm, no foul." If the breach, in this case, using hymn to remove the DRM from the track you bought from iTunes, causes no actual provable damages, it is unlikely that a court is going to grant a remedy. Contract damages are never assumed and must be proven.
What this means is that, assuming you are simply format shifting (more than likely legal under the old VCR case from the 80s... don't know the cite offhand) and not violating the copyright by distributing copies, the most Apple can do to you is cut you off from further purchases. They are unlikely to be able to prove any damages if you haven't provided that file to anyone else. However, if you have shared the file, you will get hit, as they will have both contract remedies for the breach, and their rights arising from the copyright violation.
Bottom line: If you're going to use hymn to de-DRM these, it would be... unwise... to share the resulting files, as they still contain your authentication info, which can probably be used to track who released the file into the wild, and, as discussed above, can be used to establish actual damages and copyright infringement.
It's obvious this Slashdot story was submitted by the RIAA in an apparently successful attempt to eliminate the foreign competition. I weep for the servers, now turning to slag under a severe slashdotting...
I think it is fairly likely that Autozone's motion for a stay will be granted in this case. First, SCO admitted in its motion to dismiss in the Red Hat case that "[t]he previously filed SCO v. IBM Case addresses most, if not all, of the issues of copyright infringement and misappropriation" and that "[i]f these issues are decided against SCO in that case, then Red Hat's lawsuit becomes unnecessary." That motion was denied, but, interestingly enough, the judge in that case used the same reasoning, that the core matters are already at issue in another Federal District Court case, to stay the case sua sponte (For those who haven't brushed up on their legalese: sua sponte means the court did it on its own, without motion by either party).
Actually, my guess is they were trying to get around the solicitation rules for lawyers in their state. Most states have restrictions on how lawyers can advertise, and some states are much more strict than others. It is possible they were trying to take advantage of the fact that, at the time, no court had ruled e-mail to be the same as physical junk mail, which was much more heavily restricted.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, GPS only gives you position. But if I take a reading at one point, get my position, and then walk a couple of hundred feet, and get my position there, I can use the two position readings to figure out directions.
For those of you who live in the US, you can DO SOMETHING about this. Contact your Senators! I just did, and it took about 3 minutes total. They all have online comment submission pages, which are available from http://www.senate.gov/.
Don't just bitch about it on Slashdot. Bitch about it where it really matters. Bitch about it to the people who can actually stop this from passing.
From 17 USCS 504(c), which sets the statutory damage scheme for copyright infringement:
"In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $ 150,000."
Yes, the number may seem excessive to you, but they are simply asking for what they are entitled to ask for under the law. Of course, if this actually goes to trial, they will not only have to PROVE that the infringement was committed wilfully, they will also have to CONVINCE the judge ("the court, in its discretion may") that such a high level of damages are appropriate.
Blackmail it may be, but it's completely constitutional. Congress can't force the states to do anything, so, for example, the Feds can't force your local Sheriff to provide copies of the records of his investigations over to the FBI. However, they CAN condition grants to State Governments under the Taxing & Spending Clause of the Constitution. So, instead of just ordering it (which they can't do), Congress instead drafts legislation that says to the States "You can have grants for [Homeland Security/Highway Construction/Etc.], BUT in return, you have to do X, Y, and Z. As long as X, Y, and Z are related to the purpose of the grant (and the "related to" requirement can be pretty tenuous, because Congress just states the relationship, as they see it, in the preamble to the law), the requirement is perfectly constitutional.
For those of you old enough to remember the national speed limit (55!), this is how it was done. Reagan and Congress basically conditioned highway grant funding on state legislation mandating 55 MPH speed limits. States aren't going to turn that money away, as it is too important to keeping the state economy (and therefore, tax base) moving.
It's the same with investigations into attorney misconduct by most state bars. The "witnesses" are required to keep the investigation absolutely confidential, especially from the target of the investigation.
But to paraphrase the late Justice Jackson, the Supreme Court isn't final because it's infallible, it's infallible because it's final.
Your appeal goes to the Circuit Court that covers your region of the country. There are 13 total. 12 Regional (11 are numbered, 1 through 11, and then the 12th is the D.C. Circuit). For example, in this case, the Ninth Circuit, which covers the entire Pacific coast, as well as Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, and Montana. The Ninth Circuit tends to be much more liberal in their decisions than other circuits. For reference, the Fourth Circuit, which covers Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, and the Carolinas, tends to be very conservative in its decisions. In addition, you have the Federal Circuit, which is the only federal circuit whose jurisdiction is not based on the location of the trial court, but instead on the subject matter of the case. They get ALL of the nation's patent law cases, among other subjects.
The Ninth Circuit is also the largest federal circuit court, with 47 judges on the circuit. By comparison, the Second Circuit (New York, Connecticut, and Vermont), which is the next largest, has 23 judges.
You can see a map of the Circuits here:
http://www.uscourts.gov/links.html
District Courts are required to follow the decisions of the Circuit Court that their cases are appealed to. So, for example, Ninth Circuit decisions are binding in California, but are only "persuasive" in Maryland, which is required to follow the decisions of the Fourth Circuit.
Therefore, if two Circuits look at the same issue and come down the wrong way, then the law on an issue changes depending on where you are in the Country. It's far better for the law, at least at a federal level, to be consistent and not vary depeending on where you are. That's why the Supreme Court is more likely to take a case resulting from a Circuit split.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2005/01/05/80877 4.html
This article gives a bit more detail about the situation that may make things a bit clearer.
"The jet, a chartered Cessna Citation, was landing Dec. 29 with six people aboard when a green light beam struck the windshield three times at about 3,000 feet, according to court documents. The pilot and co-pilot were temporarily blinded but were able to land the plane safely. "
Now, he may not have been trying to blind the pilots, but this guy had to realize that that is a possibility. Especially given his profession: he tests fiber-optic cables - with lasers, I assume, since it says the laser was purchased for his job AND he is quoted by police in the USA Today article as saying "Don't point it at your eyes. It could blind you" when the laser pointer was brought out during questioning.
The article says he hit the cockpit of the plane not once, but three times (!) with the laser. Stargazing my ass. He was seeing if he could really do what was in the news reports. And then, after hearing on the news that the Feds were taking this VERY seriously, he goes and points the beam at a helicopter. Not exactly the brightest bulb in the lamp, eh? A distant airplane, ok, maybe... maybe if you're a dumbass... I might believe you when you say you initially thought it was a star. A helicopter, close enough for the police to shine a spotlight on your house?
One more thing to note: Everybody is going nuts over the potential penalties in this case. 25 years and $500,000 is the maximum penalty. Keep in mind that this all has to go before a judge and possibly a jury, depending on whether his attorney thinks he'll be a sympathetic defendant for a jury. It is very rare in criminal law for a defendant to get the maximum penalty. More than likely, this guy will get less than a year in jail out of it all.
My opinion on this? This guy is one of the biggest dumbasses on the planet and probably deserves some jail time. 25 years is too much here, but some time behind bars is probably a good idea, both as a lesson for this guy and as a lesson for the "consequences ignorant" folks out there.
What this means is that you can't use lethal force to protect property (although, as far as I know, it is permissible to use the THREAT of lethal force to protect property).
There is a classic case used in Tort textbooks in law school about a guy who basically set up the shotgun-tied-to-the-doorknob trap (mentioned by the grand-parent in this thread) in his cabin to prevent trespassers (who had repeatedly broken in and stole his stuff in the past) from breaking in and stealing his stuff. Trespasser broke in and got his leg nearly shot off (serious injury), and he sued the landowner who set up the trap. Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa, 1971). The court basically laid out the principle that human life is more important than property, so you can't use lethal force (defined as "likely to cause death or serious injury") solely to protect property.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff trespasser against the defendant landowner for $20,000 actual and $10,000 punitive damages, and the appellate court affirmed it. I'm not aware of any state in the US that doesn't follow the principles outlined in this case.
So, in response to the parent's conclusion that no jury would reward the trespasser, it is very possible that not only would the jury reward the trespasser, the decision would be upheld on appeal.
Note that this involved a situation in which the spring gun was used to protect ONLY property. This case has no bearing on one's ability to use force to defend oneself or one's family from harm. Nearly every state allows the use of lethal force in that situation.
Disclaimer: This is just commentary on the law as I understand it. It is not legal advice. If you are looking at Slashdot posts for legal advice, you already need a much better lawyer than I am ;)
Right. Or, perhaps, we could actually look at the facts:
"Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart said in a telephone interview that Kerry had concluded there were not enough provisional ballots in Ohio, estimated at around 150,000, to overcome Bush's current margin of 136,000 votes, even if he were to win the lion's share of them."
www.washingtonpost.com, The Washington Post, Kerry Concedes Defeat; Bush Wins Second Term, November 3, 2004.
Later, in the same article:
"With nearly all the votes counted, Bush led 51 to 49 percent in Ohio. Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell (R) originally estimated that there would be 175,000 provisional ballots by the time the counties finish their tabulations, but later calculations reduced that figure to between 150,000 and 155,000,. Kerry's campaign did not dispute the estimate."
Realistically, Kerry would need 136,000 of those 155,000 provisional ballots, a margin of 88%, to be BOTH valid AND for him. That is, at best, a statistical improbability, as you would have to assume that nearly all of the provisional ballots were from Kerry voters who were improperly turned away. Or, to put it more bluntly, only Kerry voters were unable or unwilling to follow the simple instructions on where and how to vote. You may be willing to make that assumption. I am not.
Well, I purchased the extended warranty on my XBox when I bought it, because I am Entropy Man (tm). Electronics randomly fail around me. Hard drive? Failed in two weeks. My stereo system? One week. My printer? Didn't work when I got it home. My scanner? Didn't work when I got it home. My XBox? Lasted one week, then the DVD drive failed. Honestly, all I do is hook these things up and use as directed! It's not like I'm throwing them around, or beating on them with sticks, or something. Fortunately, I realize I have these evil powers, and so on all of these items, I purchased the extended warranty. When it went bad, I just took it back to the store where I purchased it, and they replaced it. Mayhaps there is a less to be learned for this Plaintiff. Sadly, quality will cost you a bit more.
Well, I am a young lawyer (but this isn't legal advice). What the parent is talking about is the peppercorn theory. It's a fundamental principal of Western contract law that basically means if you agree to sell a house for a peppercorn because you REALLY wanted that peppercorn, you are in a binding contract. There is no requirement that the property exchanged, be it money, objects, ideas, etc., be of actual equivalent value. You get what you agreed to take, nothing more. All legal capacity issues aside, if you sell your SUV for an acorn because you think (through no fault of the seller) that the acorn is worth it, you're bound. Have fun with that acorn :)
From the Court's factual findings: "Henry Kluepfel, Director of Network Security Technology (an affiliate Bell Company), was advised a sensitive, proprietary computer document of Bell South relating to Bell's "911 program" had been made available to the public on [a BBS in Illinois]... Around February 6, 1990, Kluepfel learned that the 911 document was available on a computer billboard entitled "Phoenix" which was operated by Loyd Blankenship in Austin, Texas... Prior to February 26, 1990, Kluepfel learned that Blankenship not only operated the Phoenix bulletin board, but he was a user of the Illinois bulletin board wherein the 911 document was first disclosed, was an employee of Steve Jackson Games, Inc., and a user of the Steve Jackson Games, Inc.'s bulletin board "Illuminati." Kluepfel's investigation also determined that Blankenship was a "co-sysop" of the Illuminati bulletin board, which means that he had the ability to review anything on the Illuminati bulletin board and, importantly, maybe able to delete anything on the system. Blankenship's bulletin board Phoenix had published "hacker" information and had solicited "hacker" information relating to passwords, ostensibly to be analyzed in some type of decryption scheme."
Kluepfel reported this to the Secret Service. Kluepfel had a positive history with the Secret Service, in that he had assisted them in prior investigations. The Secret Service agent handling the investigation, Agent Foley, contacted the local U.S. Attorney's Office and had the local U.S. Attorney file for a warrant to search and seize SJG's hardware in order to get evidence about Bell South's 911 file. "The only information Agent Foley had regarding Steve Jackson Games, Inc. and Steve Jackson was that he thought this was a company that put out games, but he also reviewed a printout of Illuminati on February 25, 1990, which read, "Greetings, Mortal! You have entered the secret computer system of the Illuminati, the on-line home of the world's oldest and largest secret conspiracy. 5124474449300/1200/2400BAUD fronted by Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. Fnord." The evidence in this case strongly suggests Agent Foley, without any further investigation, misconstrued this information to believe the Illuminati bulletin board was similar in purpose to Blankenship's Phoenix bulletin board, which provided information to and was used by "hackers." Agent Foley believed, in good faith, at the time of the execution of his affidavit on February 28, 1990, there was probable cause to believe Blankenship had the 911 Bell South document [**12] and information relating to the decryption scheme stored in his computer at home or perhaps in computers, disks, or in the Illuminati bulletin board at his place of employment at Steve Jackson Games, Inc.; that these materials were involved in criminal activities; and that Blankenship had the ability to delete any information stored on any of these computers and/or disks."
"The only information Agent Foley had regarding Steve Jackson Games, Inc. and Steve Jackson was that he thought this was a company that put out games, but he also reviewed a printout of Illuminati on February 25, 1990, which read, "Greetings, Mortal! You have entered the secret computer system of the Illuminati, the on-line home of the world's oldest and largest secret conspiracy. 5124474449300/1200/2400BAUD fronted by Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. Fnord." The evidence in this case strongly suggests Agent Foley, without any further investigation, misconstrued this information to believe the Illuminati bulletin board was similar in purpose to Blankenship's Phoenix bulletin board, which provided information to and was used by "hackers.""
That last bit is where the court found fault with the government's case. The Secret Service basically acted on Foley's mis
I live in the Washington, D.C., area, and I have several good friends who were in the area on 9/11. One of them watched the plane fly OVER HIS CAR to crash into the Pentagon. He was close enough to feel the heat from the explosion. Federal authorities ordered he and the other people on the road to leave their cars on foot and come back later to retrieve them. Another friend was at National Airport and watched the crash. Nobody saw the plane? I think what you meant to say is that "Nobody *filmed* the plane" If a nobody like me who just happens to live in the area knows several trustworthy people who saw it, plenty of people saw it.
(I apologize in advance for the rant here, but this really pissed me off). Nobody was in that section of the building? I work with people who lost family members in the resulting crash. I know people who still bear the scars from burns they received helping others escape the flames. One hundred and twenty-five people lost their lives on the ground. Nobody? Congratulations. You've just told the grieving widow in my wife's office that her dead husband was "nobody." Not only is your post simply wrong, it's offensive. Get a clue about the facts before you post.
Normally I ignore most of this political BS. Slashdot seems to have a higher than average concentration of far-rightists and far-lefties. However, the poster above went a bit over the line by accusing Bush of treason with no proof or even reason to suspect. You destroy your own credibility with such outlandish claims. I may not like Michael Moore's methods and I probably disagree with many of his conclusions, but at least he had source material to rely on.
I have to agree with the parent's last point: The political impact of this movie will probably be pretty low. Recent polls have shown a historically low number of currently undecided voters out there. In addition, in my observation, most "undecided" voters are really just voters who have made up their mind who to vote for, but just won't come clean on it.
So, the impact of this movie? Those who already hate GW Bush will be really riled up and angry, and will vote for John Kerry even more stridently. Of course, it doesn't matter how hard you press the Kerry button, or how forcefully you jam your ballot into the box, you still only get one vote.
But, then again, maybe he will actually accomplish something: Democrats are historically "lazy" voters (in that there are often more TOTAL democrat voters in the US, but a much smaller percentage of them compared to Republicans actually vote), and this movie may motivate more Democrafts to actually get out and vote. It's possible this move may have that impact, and given how close this election is expected to be, that may be enough.
Try reading the opinion again. Not "any time for any reason." The police need "reasonable suspicion" that you were involved in criminal activity. That was present here. Remember, "reasonable" is going to be looked at as an objective standard. The cop can't just say "He looked suspicious." He's got to be able to state specific reasons why he suspected that you were involved in a crime.
Guess somebody didn't RTFA. The case doesn't say they can get your identification papers. It says you have to give the police your name. That's it, just your name. Explain to me how that simple requirement requires a tinfoil hat? Hell, you have to wear a nametag to work at McDonalds...
Well, at most, the Metro should cost you $25.00 a week here, because that's the weekly pass cost. For my wife, she could keep it under that ($2.15 each way per day = $21.50), and the time would be about the same as driving. Unfortunately, she can get a week's worth of gas for around $15 for her car (well, at least she can as long as gas stays under $2 per gallon...), so it's just not worth it to Metro (unless, obviously, gas prices keep climbing).
The Department of Justice sues for damages all the time. They are the primary enforcement arm for every government agency except for the SEC (which has its own attorneys). Many violations of federal regulatory statutes are for civil penalties rather for criminal penalties. Here, the bill authorizes penalties AND restitution to the artist (with an offset for anything recovered by the artist in their own suit). As for the distinction between civil courts and criminal courts, there's really no such thing. The procedures are different (burden of proof, speedy trial guarantee, etc.), but they are the same courts and the same judges. Then again, you do cite a particular problem: The courts are already crowded, especially federal courts (where the DoJ would primarily prosecute these violations), because they are loaded with federal drug cases.
It's this attitude that bothers me. In many cases it's not that we don't choose to use mass transit, it's that we CAN'T choose to use mass transit. Europeans are generally blessed in that nearly every major city in Europe has efficient mass transit. Europe also has a much higher population density, which results in mass transit being more efficient in non-urban areas as well.
In the U.S., however, the population is much more spread out. I currently live in the Washington, D.C. suburbs, where subway and bus lines are convenient, and I use them when I can (I am very fortunate in that I live about a mile from my office and can actually walk to work). Only crazy people and those whose office is too distant from a metro station actually drive into the city.
An interesting note, here, however, is that it is actually more economical for my wife to drive to work rather than to metro, even though there is a train station within a couple of blocks of each end of the trip and the trip takes about the same time each way. The cost of the metro for a week is not less than the cost of gas and parking. Why is this? I wish I knew. Fixing this problem would make mass transit a much more attractive solution.
However, in redneck America (rural Michigan) where I grew up, it was twenty miles to the nearest grocery store. Mass transit is nonexistent for a reason: The population is so spread out that it's simply not economical to establish a mass transit system. A sizable percentage of Americans live in locations with similar problems.
Now, with regard to the Maryland and Virginia residents around me who spend three hours in their Ford Battlecruiser or Toyota Juggernaught to get to work when they could have hopped the bus or the train within a block or two of their house... I have no excuse for them. I assume they are mentally incompetent and have too much money, as they seem to be throwing it away on gas and parking. If they are the problem you are referring to, then by all means, flame away. They suck.
A couple of points: 1)A contract is an agreement that the parties have agreed has the force of law. This means that if one party has breached the agreement, the other party can turn to the courts for a remedy. 2) There is a doctrine called "material breach." There's a lot more to it than this, but for our purposes, it basically says "no harm, no foul." If the breach, in this case, using hymn to remove the DRM from the track you bought from iTunes, causes no actual provable damages, it is unlikely that a court is going to grant a remedy. Contract damages are never assumed and must be proven. What this means is that, assuming you are simply format shifting (more than likely legal under the old VCR case from the 80s... don't know the cite offhand) and not violating the copyright by distributing copies, the most Apple can do to you is cut you off from further purchases. They are unlikely to be able to prove any damages if you haven't provided that file to anyone else. However, if you have shared the file, you will get hit, as they will have both contract remedies for the breach, and their rights arising from the copyright violation. Bottom line: If you're going to use hymn to de-DRM these, it would be... unwise... to share the resulting files, as they still contain your authentication info, which can probably be used to track who released the file into the wild, and, as discussed above, can be used to establish actual damages and copyright infringement.
It's obvious this Slashdot story was submitted by the RIAA in an apparently successful attempt to eliminate the foreign competition. I weep for the servers, now turning to slag under a severe slashdotting...
I think it is fairly likely that Autozone's motion for a stay will be granted in this case. First, SCO admitted in its motion to dismiss in the Red Hat case that "[t]he previously filed SCO v. IBM Case addresses most, if not all, of the issues of copyright infringement and misappropriation" and that "[i]f these issues are decided against SCO in that case, then Red Hat's lawsuit becomes unnecessary." That motion was denied, but, interestingly enough, the judge in that case used the same reasoning, that the core matters are already at issue in another Federal District Court case, to stay the case sua sponte (For those who haven't brushed up on their legalese: sua sponte means the court did it on its own, without motion by either party).
Actually, my guess is they were trying to get around the solicitation rules for lawyers in their state. Most states have restrictions on how lawyers can advertise, and some states are much more strict than others. It is possible they were trying to take advantage of the fact that, at the time, no court had ruled e-mail to be the same as physical junk mail, which was much more heavily restricted.