So they see what they "SUSPECT" is an illegal cache of chemicals. Because most people are not competent enough to determine if they are illegal or not without making an inventory of them the usual course of action would be to ASK if they could come and inspect it or to file for a search warrant.
You've forgotten that probable cause can negate the need for a warrant. For example, if you see someone drinking from a bottle labeled "Miller Lite" while you've pulled them over for speeding then you have probable cause to inspect the bottle or their breath. You don't need a warrant.
Exercising raises your heart rate short term, but lowers your heart rate long term.
My resting heart rate has lowered from 65 to 50-ish this past year since I began high-intensity interval training. Three times a week I knock my heart rate up to about 170 or 180 for less than 30 minutes. That's about a 100-beat increase over my former resting rate. That's a 9000 beat per week increase over "sitting around doing nothing."
My resting heart rate has lowered 15 beats per minute. Another way, that's approximately 150,000 beats fewer per week my heart beats thanks to the exercise I get.
I don't know if this is typical, but it has been scientifically recorded.
Well, if you want to go that route, neither "sin" nor free will have been compatible with science since physics was invented. If the world is completely governed by the initial conditions of the universe and physics laws, how can we be responsible for anything we've done, as, if we knew the initial conditions, we could predict millennia in advance what some currently non-existent person will do (erasing free will, and therefore sin).
I used to hear about my friends having heroine overdoses--they'd read too many Supergirl comic books, then try to pick up chicks and fail. It seems the heroine made them impotent.
You've never had LDS or Jehova's Witness members visit your house? Where do you live, your mother's basement?
I, too, live in Texas. Excluding the door-to-door evangelism of these two groups (and batshit insane corner preachers (who I think don't count as converters and instead count as local crazies just like Leslie, our homeless cross-dresser) at UT-Austin calling girls with makeup "whores" as they walk by), I've never been accosted.
If I'd never studied at UT, I could say that the only times I've ever been accosted have been by the door-to-door-ers of the LDS and JW churches.
Another way of calculating X^2 is (X-1)(X+1)+1. This is very beneficial when calculating (A*10+9)^2 (or, to put it another way, when calculating squares of numbers ending in 9).
For example, 19^2 = 20*18+1 = 360+1 = 361. 9^2 = 8+10+1 = 81.
it's not clear this ruling will affect [other states]
The blurb here is very misleading (in before "welcome to Slashdot"). Of course it won't affect other states.
The decision was handed down by the California Supreme Court, a court which has no precedential value in any other jurisdiction outside California (save Ninth Circuit diversity cases with venue in California) and has little persuasive value outside of California for a couple reasons.
First, it's California--the judges there are known for trying *ahem* novel approaches to the law. I wrote a brief once to file with a federal court in Texas and my boss asked me to cite cases that didn't arise out of California or the Ninth Circuit because judges in Texas wouldn't view such citations favorably. In this case, the judges were right in their decision in my opinion (yes, I RTFO).
Second, and most importantly, there are copious references to California statutes in the decision. In fact, the issue in contention in this case was the proper interpretation of a California statute. Simplifying a bit, the answer was that a California Business and Professions Code statute saying "non-compete agreements are void" means "non-compete agreements are void." Unless another state says, "Oh, our statute number X = &California_Section_16600," (joke about void and references and pointers YAY!) this means jack in all other states.
Sudden outbreak of common sense in California, but it doesn't mean anything to people outside that state.
I don't think you understand how incredibly hard it is for a child to get a court order granting emancipation. You have to prove that value(emancipated) > value(!emancipated).
If you think a kid is going to be able to prove that to a middle-age-or-older judge when their chief argument is "My parents won't stop asking me how my life is going," I just don't know what to say to you--you're being unreasonable and illogical.
In the example you are describing, who would file the police report?
No one would file the police report because breach of contract is a civil offense, not a criminal offense. I think our society would crumble if breach of contract became a criminal offense.
Alternatively, why not write the AB contract to allow closure in the event that an efficient breach becomes available that pleases both parties?
That is unnecessary since efficient breach has been part of our common law tradition for hundreds and hundreds of years. Also, contracts can be oral. To say no contract can be oral would also destroy our society, as all promises would have to be written down, and that's not feasible (people would promise less and depend on each other less, and subsequently less would get accomplished).
If a contract is oral (as many are: haven't you ever promised someone something if they do something in return? that's a contract!), do you really think non-lawyers would think to put in an efficient-breach "clause"?
This would mean every agreement ever made for consideration would require a lawyer! Talk about creating a system in which everyone needs a lawyer...
2nd alternative, don't make breach of contract illegal. Make continued use of the service illegal after breach.
When does breach occur? Often, breach occurs because parties disagree as to the meaning of the terms of a contract. If using a service after breach is criminal, that creates a slew of new problems because people might wittingly commit acts, but unwittingly commit the criminal act of continuing to use a service after breach. They knowingly used the service, so it would meet the mens rea of a breach penal law.
Also, if the TOS of a site require you to provide a real name and you provide a fake name, you've breached from the start. Thus, you'd go to jail for X number of years. I'd much rather have the site sue you for breach, and they'd be awarded damages. In most cases, the damages would be negligible, as they should be for providing a fake name on a MySpace join-up form.
The alternative is that you'd go to jail for X number of years, and that should be patently illogical to most people. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if it violates the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution (cruel and unusual punishment). But I'm not an 8th Amendment scholar, so I can't say for sure.
The problem your proposal has (make breaking a contract illegal) is that it clashes with the concept of "efficient breach." Efficient breach functions like this:
Parties A and B enter into a contract. A will get X consideration and B will get Y consideration.
Party C talks to party A and offers a new contract for Z consideration that requires A to break off the contract with B (say the two contracts are mutually exclusive). If Z > X, then A should breach the AB contract.
After the breach lawsuit, B recovers Y from A. A gets Z > X from C.
B gets exactly what B wanted by the original contract. A gets better than the original contract.
In other words, every party got what they wanted or better by the breach! From any philosophical perspective (other than "breaking a promise is wrong in and of itself"), this is a net benefit for society.
Finally, every common law political body's (every government's?) contract law operates on utilitarian principles. "Efficient breach" embodies this principle. You're asking for a system in which B gets what he wants, but A loses out on a better deal because of your silly rule that "breaching contracts should be illegal just because of my morality!"
When breaking a promise yields a net benefit for everyone, why should it be illegal?
A lawsuit for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress is probably already a simple case for this. The tort exists in practically every jurisdiction in substantially the same form.
Maybe some jurisdiction requires that the victim still be alive to recover, but I doubt that for most jurisdictions, as that's not a requirement for winning most lawsuits.
Having to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that this woman was the proximate cause of emotional distress should be easy. The rest should be even easier (harm occurred, intent, etc.).
This is most likely not fraud. In Texas, it's generally true that you have to have committed the act to gain financially or by property for it to be fraud. There are exceptions, such as impersonating a real person for gain (but then, I think you have to have been using biometric data, SSNs, and such) or possessing a fraudulent degree (but the degree has to have been used for one of a variety of purposes that involve admission to a state school or to gain financially).
Creating a fake online persona is not fraud. Or would have have everyone but a few on Slashdot arrested? Wouldn't buying/using someone else's Slashdot account be fraud then, since you're passing yourself off as someone else?
If you throw a beehive on someone, and they turn out to be allergic, does that mean that their death is not your fault
CIVIL: Under the thin-skull doctrine, you probably will be sued successfully for battery. You will definitely be sued successfully for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
CRIMINAL: However, you will not be successfully prosecuted for murder unless the prosecution can prove that you knew the victim was deathly allergic to bees.
Note that this is just a law student's opinion. YMMV.
I'll give you the first point, but you call inspiration "bullshit" because it doesn't produce results. What about enjoyment of life? People with no goals and dreams are unhappy.
It doesn't matter whether or not "I want to be like Page" resulted in another Page. What matters is how it made the "inspired" feel. When you get down to it, sports accomplish no real societal goal other than entertainment/happiness (a few do gain physical fitness that complements their mental fitness to achieve "real results").
Perhaps it all depends on your worldview. I consider human happiness to be a factor in measuring success, and you seem to disagree.
I think your worldview is depressing, but you may think mine is pointless.
Unless you raise a really interesting point in your next post, feel free to have the last word.
And I assume you donate no time nor money to charity work or political movements? Because giving $50 to one of those foundations for helping poor children is worthless since there are so many children and you're only helping one?
Regardless of that, you sidestepped my point: Brin, Page, etc., actually do inspire others and give them hope or something to aspire to. They do. You'd have to have your head stuck in the sand not to realize this.
How are the Olympics any different? Same proportion of "heroes" to "normals," same level of accolade, a goal to be aspired to, etc.
"kumalalele was from my village. he was like me. but he grew up and went to olympics. i can do it one day myself too !" - bullcrap
Right there you said that no one sees an olympian village member and derives benefit or hope. I presented evidence that you were wrong.
I never claimed everyone in a country derives hope. My stance is, and has always been, that it is a net positive to have olympians. Your stance has been that there is no benefit at all.
And then you go on to cite Brin, Page, Jobs, etc., as if that helps your argument. In fact, I think it provides the sword to defeat your argument.
Are you really willing to claim that there are no middle schoolers, high schoolers, college CS students, or even IT professionals who are not inspired by the technorati to work hard in hopes of achieving a similar level of success and lifting themselves out of "normal life"? How is this any different than athletes in the Olympics?
Because I'm willing to claim that there are plenty, and I think most Slashdotters would agree.
Three seconds in Google. It is an interview with an Olympian from Ethiopia who said that her victories at the Olympics are directly responsible for more gender equality in her village.
I'm quite sure there are more, but I stopped at the first one I found. For reference, all I had to search for was "ethiopia olympics inspired."
Substitute "ethiopia" with another country and you may find more.
Slashdot Mirror
You've forgotten that probable cause can negate the need for a warrant. For example, if you see someone drinking from a bottle labeled "Miller Lite" while you've pulled them over for speeding then you have probable cause to inspect the bottle or their breath. You don't need a warrant.
Exercising raises your heart rate short term, but lowers your heart rate long term.
My resting heart rate has lowered from 65 to 50-ish this past year since I began high-intensity interval training. Three times a week I knock my heart rate up to about 170 or 180 for less than 30 minutes. That's about a 100-beat increase over my former resting rate. That's a 9000 beat per week increase over "sitting around doing nothing."
My resting heart rate has lowered 15 beats per minute. Another way, that's approximately 150,000 beats fewer per week my heart beats thanks to the exercise I get.
I don't know if this is typical, but it has been scientifically recorded.
Well, if you want to go that route, neither "sin" nor free will have been compatible with science since physics was invented. If the world is completely governed by the initial conditions of the universe and physics laws, how can we be responsible for anything we've done, as, if we knew the initial conditions, we could predict millennia in advance what some currently non-existent person will do (erasing free will, and therefore sin).
I used to hear about my friends having heroine overdoses--they'd read too many Supergirl comic books, then try to pick up chicks and fail. It seems the heroine made them impotent.
The pot, the guns, and the anarchy? ;)
You know, I would have imagined that 3.14.159 would have it complete a half circle, not a full circle.
You've never had LDS or Jehova's Witness members visit your house? Where do you live, your mother's basement?
I, too, live in Texas. Excluding the door-to-door evangelism of these two groups (and batshit insane corner preachers (who I think don't count as converters and instead count as local crazies just like Leslie, our homeless cross-dresser) at UT-Austin calling girls with makeup "whores" as they walk by), I've never been accosted.
If I'd never studied at UT, I could say that the only times I've ever been accosted have been by the door-to-door-ers of the LDS and JW churches.
Another way of calculating X^2 is (X-1)(X+1)+1. This is very beneficial when calculating (A*10+9)^2 (or, to put it another way, when calculating squares of numbers ending in 9).
For example, 19^2 = 20*18+1 = 360+1 = 361.
9^2 = 8+10+1 = 81.
The blurb here is very misleading (in before "welcome to Slashdot"). Of course it won't affect other states.
The decision was handed down by the California Supreme Court, a court which has no precedential value in any other jurisdiction outside California (save Ninth Circuit diversity cases with venue in California) and has little persuasive value outside of California for a couple reasons.
First, it's California--the judges there are known for trying *ahem* novel approaches to the law. I wrote a brief once to file with a federal court in Texas and my boss asked me to cite cases that didn't arise out of California or the Ninth Circuit because judges in Texas wouldn't view such citations favorably. In this case, the judges were right in their decision in my opinion (yes, I RTFO).
Second, and most importantly, there are copious references to California statutes in the decision. In fact, the issue in contention in this case was the proper interpretation of a California statute. Simplifying a bit, the answer was that a California Business and Professions Code statute saying "non-compete agreements are void" means "non-compete agreements are void." Unless another state says, "Oh, our statute number X = &California_Section_16600," (joke about void and references and pointers YAY!) this means jack in all other states.
Sudden outbreak of common sense in California, but it doesn't mean anything to people outside that state.
What someone who uses "civil" and "prosecute" in the same breath thinks about the law is irrelevant.
I don't think you understand how incredibly hard it is for a child to get a court order granting emancipation. You have to prove that value(emancipated) > value(!emancipated).
If you think a kid is going to be able to prove that to a middle-age-or-older judge when their chief argument is "My parents won't stop asking me how my life is going," I just don't know what to say to you--you're being unreasonable and illogical.
No one would file the police report because breach of contract is a civil offense, not a criminal offense. I think our society would crumble if breach of contract became a criminal offense.
That is unnecessary since efficient breach has been part of our common law tradition for hundreds and hundreds of years. Also, contracts can be oral. To say no contract can be oral would also destroy our society, as all promises would have to be written down, and that's not feasible (people would promise less and depend on each other less, and subsequently less would get accomplished).
If a contract is oral (as many are: haven't you ever promised someone something if they do something in return? that's a contract!), do you really think non-lawyers would think to put in an efficient-breach "clause"?
This would mean every agreement ever made for consideration would require a lawyer! Talk about creating a system in which everyone needs a lawyer...
When does breach occur? Often, breach occurs because parties disagree as to the meaning of the terms of a contract. If using a service after breach is criminal, that creates a slew of new problems because people might wittingly commit acts, but unwittingly commit the criminal act of continuing to use a service after breach. They knowingly used the service, so it would meet the mens rea of a breach penal law.
Also, if the TOS of a site require you to provide a real name and you provide a fake name, you've breached from the start. Thus, you'd go to jail for X number of years. I'd much rather have the site sue you for breach, and they'd be awarded damages. In most cases, the damages would be negligible, as they should be for providing a fake name on a MySpace join-up form.
The alternative is that you'd go to jail for X number of years, and that should be patently illogical to most people. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if it violates the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution (cruel and unusual punishment). But I'm not an 8th Amendment scholar, so I can't say for sure.
The problem your proposal has (make breaking a contract illegal) is that it clashes with the concept of "efficient breach." Efficient breach functions like this:
Parties A and B enter into a contract. A will get X consideration and B will get Y consideration.
Party C talks to party A and offers a new contract for Z consideration that requires A to break off the contract with B (say the two contracts are mutually exclusive). If Z > X, then A should breach the AB contract.
After the breach lawsuit, B recovers Y from A. A gets Z > X from C.
B gets exactly what B wanted by the original contract. A gets better than the original contract.
In other words, every party got what they wanted or better by the breach! From any philosophical perspective (other than "breaking a promise is wrong in and of itself"), this is a net benefit for society.
Finally, every common law political body's (every government's?) contract law operates on utilitarian principles. "Efficient breach" embodies this principle. You're asking for a system in which B gets what he wants, but A loses out on a better deal because of your silly rule that "breaching contracts should be illegal just because of my morality!"
When breaking a promise yields a net benefit for everyone , why should it be illegal?
A lawsuit for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress is probably already a simple case for this. The tort exists in practically every jurisdiction in substantially the same form.
Maybe some jurisdiction requires that the victim still be alive to recover, but I doubt that for most jurisdictions, as that's not a requirement for winning most lawsuits.
Having to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that this woman was the proximate cause of emotional distress should be easy. The rest should be even easier (harm occurred, intent, etc.).
This is most likely not fraud. In Texas, it's generally true that you have to have committed the act to gain financially or by property for it to be fraud. There are exceptions, such as impersonating a real person for gain (but then, I think you have to have been using biometric data, SSNs, and such) or possessing a fraudulent degree (but the degree has to have been used for one of a variety of purposes that involve admission to a state school or to gain financially).
Creating a fake online persona is not fraud. Or would have have everyone but a few on Slashdot arrested? Wouldn't buying/using someone else's Slashdot account be fraud then, since you're passing yourself off as someone else?
Slimeballiness aside, should that person be convicted of felony murder?
Just to take your first question:
CIVIL: Under the thin-skull doctrine, you probably will be sued successfully for battery. You will definitely be sued successfully for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
CRIMINAL: However, you will not be successfully prosecuted for murder unless the prosecution can prove that you knew the victim was deathly allergic to bees.
Note that this is just a law student's opinion. YMMV.
Juries don't set precedent. Only judges can do that.
Rape and murder harm a person. Vigilantism harms the entire society. Thus, vigilantism is, from a utilitarian perspective, worse than rape or murder.
Not IP addresses: The ping time between HUGSALOT469 and EMOKID4CURE must be at least 553ms.
For the punishment to fit the crime, shouldn't they lock her in a room with MySpace and let other people insult her via that medium?
I'll give you the first point, but you call inspiration "bullshit" because it doesn't produce results. What about enjoyment of life? People with no goals and dreams are unhappy.
It doesn't matter whether or not "I want to be like Page" resulted in another Page. What matters is how it made the "inspired" feel. When you get down to it, sports accomplish no real societal goal other than entertainment/happiness (a few do gain physical fitness that complements their mental fitness to achieve "real results").
Perhaps it all depends on your worldview. I consider human happiness to be a factor in measuring success, and you seem to disagree.
I think your worldview is depressing, but you may think mine is pointless.
Unless you raise a really interesting point in your next post, feel free to have the last word.
And I assume you donate no time nor money to charity work or political movements? Because giving $50 to one of those foundations for helping poor children is worthless since there are so many children and you're only helping one?
Regardless of that, you sidestepped my point: Brin, Page, etc., actually do inspire others and give them hope or something to aspire to. They do. You'd have to have your head stuck in the sand not to realize this.
How are the Olympics any different? Same proportion of "heroes" to "normals," same level of accolade, a goal to be aspired to, etc.
No, you're the one who doesn't get it.
Right there you said that no one sees an olympian village member and derives benefit or hope. I presented evidence that you were wrong.
I never claimed everyone in a country derives hope. My stance is, and has always been, that it is a net positive to have olympians. Your stance has been that there is no benefit at all.
And then you go on to cite Brin, Page, Jobs, etc., as if that helps your argument. In fact, I think it provides the sword to defeat your argument.
Are you really willing to claim that there are no middle schoolers, high schoolers, college CS students, or even IT professionals who are not inspired by the technorati to work hard in hopes of achieving a similar level of success and lifting themselves out of "normal life"? How is this any different than athletes in the Olympics?
Because I'm willing to claim that there are plenty, and I think most Slashdotters would agree.
Three seconds in Google. It is an interview with an Olympian from Ethiopia who said that her victories at the Olympics are directly responsible for more gender equality in her village.
I'm quite sure there are more, but I stopped at the first one I found. For reference, all I had to search for was "ethiopia olympics inspired."
Substitute "ethiopia" with another country and you may find more.