Before we throw away centuries of reasoned legal development because some guy on slashdot has a fetish for personal property rights, you might want to consider that the purpose of adverse possession laws was to encourage productive land use. If you're using the land, you know if someone is trespassing. If you're not using it, you lose it. It's like a spoiled kid who takes no interest in a long-neglected toy, but demands its return the moment someone else starts playing with it.
Further, many jurisdictions require the would-be adverse possessor to have a reasonable good faith belief that no one else has a better claim to the land. Many, if not most states also require a would-be adverse possessor to pay property taxes every year during the statute of limitations (usually around 9 years). Then it's a simple matter of a rightful landowner checking with the local government once every 8 years and 364 days to see if anyone else is paying a property tax on their land. If that's too much trouble for someone who owns land they're not even using, then they don't deserve it, sorry.
As a practical matter, adverse possession claims rarely work, largely because of the obstacles I just mentioned. So even if you're right about adverse possession being "one of the stupidist laws on the books," it's not exactly a major problem. This is just like right wingers clamoring for "tort reform" when in every case of an excessive jury award they could point to, they fail to mention that judges routinely reduce the final award drastically. Often, these awards are even further reduced on appeal.
As for your car example, report it stolen. If the cops don't recover it in 9 years, they're not going to anyway, regardless of whether the thief claims adverse possession.
Finally, since adverse possession is a common law doctrine, it's not actually "on the books."
Castle laws never came up in your criminal law class? Here's an example.
There are many more. I know Louisiana has (or at least at one point had) castle laws as well.
What he *should* have done was create a blacklist of IPs known to belong to DirectTV and any business partners they may have had.
He did do that, the court said that was insufficient. From the decision (p16 fn.7):
At oral argument, Snow stated that he prevented individuals from accessing 7 ssing his website
who used web-based, anonymous email accounts or computers with IP addresses assigned to
DirecTV. This argument does not change our analysis. Such facts cannot be inferred from the
complaint, which only alleges that "the integrity of the Web site and the privacy of its visitors"
was maintained by warning notices forbidding access by DirecTV and its agents.
Yeah, this was a federal question but regardless, the plaintiff could have raised the contract claim under supplimental jurisdiction. Unless he or his lawyers know something I don't, it sounds like a nice malpractice claim to me. That is, if Snow's still feeling litigous -- the malpractice claim would mark his 3rd court battle.
The contract claim seems much stronger than the SCA claim. Any other legal hobbyists care to tell me why they didn't pursue it?
Mine still has that "new, almost unused" beautifully tight pink ring...
you're doing something wrong if your girlfriend's ass looks "almost unused". My girlfriends ass is all busted out like a lady baboon's.
so you could create a vibrating instrument to induce bowel movements, but then you'd probably get sued by the vibrating buttplug manufacturer's association... those guys are jerks!
I understand your frustration, but the point of having the computers is for students and teachers to use them. Your job is to do what they ask you to do and make sure it works, even when it's hard.
Why stop at refusing to install software because it decreases stability, why not just tell the school administrators not to bother taking the computers out of their shipping boxes, since inevitably they're bound to break from student/teacher use/abuse.
"Third, fluoride has no dosage control,..."
when talking about flouridated water, that is patently false.
when I say there's no dosage control, I don't mean in terms of parts per million. of course that's regulated. I mean that someone who drinks 8 glasses of tap water a day gets a much larger dose than someone who drinks only one.
when in doubt, I tend to believe the group that doesn't have a monetary interest in the outcome, and fluorinating municipal water supplies subsidizes the chemical industry--guys who have influence and deep pockets. Second, flouride treatment is only effective when it's in contact with the teeth, actually absorbing it into your blood stream is unneccessary, if there's any question about possible adverse health effects, why expose yourself to something that's unneccessary. Third, fluoride has no dosage control, someone who uses hippy organic toothpaste and generally drinks bottled water is getting doses wildly different from someone who cooks with and drinks 8 glasses of tap water a day. Seems like a hamfisted dental hygeine policy to me.
That said, yes, I tend to have faith in the CDC, this is just something else to consider.
Ok, I'm preparing for the tin foil hat jokes, but fluoride's actually not good for people. Granted, a treatment that binds fluoride to the surface of the teeth is better than drinking it, but I'd prefer if we didn't fuck with fluoride at all. Almost all fluoride that's produced is merely a biproduct of other chemical reactions. If city governments didn't buy this stuff from chemical plants to put in drinking water, they'd have to dispose of it like any other toxic waste.
then the (admittedely rare) individuals who buy blank cds for legal purposes have to pay the tax and get screwed.
They tried to institute a blank tape tax in the 80's, and tried to get VCRs taken off the market, too. We know how well that worked out...
What record label is going to give up their music if they know it's good?
they're already giving it up for free--on bittorrent, on emule, etc...
the idea is to provide a legal alternative that costs a reasonable amount of money. Even people as stupid as record company executives must be able to understand that making some money of internet downloads is better than making no money.
I phrased it that way as a means of clarification/emphasis because the parent was taking it to mean "hottest year in 100 years" and ignoring the "on record" part. Signficantly different meanings that are worthy of a little overemphasis.
we don't dig up refined fissionable uranium, we did up ore with radiation levels hardly above background. If we were storing unpurified ore, it'd be one thing, but nuclear waste is tremendously more radioactive. And the reason we shouldn't store it in Yucca isn't "made up" the reason is that the engineers who designed the Yucca storage site have said that it the waste would begin leaking into groundwater in 2 or 3 hundred years, long before the radioactivity has decreased significantly.
even if modern reactor designs that us "scientifically illiterate" people are too dumb to appreaciate make another chernobyl unlikely, problems still exist.
where are we going to safely store the radioactive waste for the next 80 zillion years?
and nuclear power plants make much better terrorist targets than windwills or solar panels do.
Slashdot Mirror
Before we throw away centuries of reasoned legal development because some guy on slashdot has a fetish for personal property rights, you might want to consider that the purpose of adverse possession laws was to encourage productive land use. If you're using the land, you know if someone is trespassing. If you're not using it, you lose it. It's like a spoiled kid who takes no interest in a long-neglected toy, but demands its return the moment someone else starts playing with it.
Further, many jurisdictions require the would-be adverse possessor to have a reasonable good faith belief that no one else has a better claim to the land. Many, if not most states also require a would-be adverse possessor to pay property taxes every year during the statute of limitations (usually around 9 years). Then it's a simple matter of a rightful landowner checking with the local government once every 8 years and 364 days to see if anyone else is paying a property tax on their land. If that's too much trouble for someone who owns land they're not even using, then they don't deserve it, sorry.
As a practical matter, adverse possession claims rarely work, largely because of the obstacles I just mentioned. So even if you're right about adverse possession being "one of the stupidist laws on the books," it's not exactly a major problem. This is just like right wingers clamoring for "tort reform" when in every case of an excessive jury award they could point to, they fail to mention that judges routinely reduce the final award drastically. Often, these awards are even further reduced on appeal. As for your car example, report it stolen. If the cops don't recover it in 9 years, they're not going to anyway, regardless of whether the thief claims adverse possession. Finally, since adverse possession is a common law doctrine, it's not actually "on the books."
Castle laws never came up in your criminal law class? Here's an example. There are many more. I know Louisiana has (or at least at one point had) castle laws as well.
he meant 100 words per minute that aren't corrected, i.e., that you have to spend the next minute or two re-reading and correcting.
Yeah, this was a federal question but regardless, the plaintiff could have raised the contract claim under supplimental jurisdiction. Unless he or his lawyers know something I don't, it sounds like a nice malpractice claim to me. That is, if Snow's still feeling litigous -- the malpractice claim would mark his 3rd court battle. The contract claim seems much stronger than the SCA claim. Any other legal hobbyists care to tell me why they didn't pursue it?
I don't think farmers are too averse to operating stills. It'd be cool to see vintage prohibition-era moonshine operations repurposed, too.
Mine still has that "new, almost unused" beautifully tight pink ring...
you're doing something wrong if your girlfriend's ass looks "almost unused". My girlfriends ass is all busted out like a lady baboon's.
no, actually it's a different joke. you're not being a careful reader. neither are you, person who modded him up.
a windows machine goes one better. instead of just simulating an infection, with windows you get the real thing.
so you could create a vibrating instrument to induce bowel movements, but then you'd probably get sued by the vibrating buttplug manufacturer's association... those guys are jerks!
tin foil hats won't save you
I understand your frustration, but the point of having the computers is for students and teachers to use them. Your job is to do what they ask you to do and make sure it works, even when it's hard. Why stop at refusing to install software because it decreases stability, why not just tell the school administrators not to bother taking the computers out of their shipping boxes, since inevitably they're bound to break from student/teacher use/abuse.
"Third, fluoride has no dosage control,..." when talking about flouridated water, that is patently false. when I say there's no dosage control, I don't mean in terms of parts per million. of course that's regulated. I mean that someone who drinks 8 glasses of tap water a day gets a much larger dose than someone who drinks only one.
unlike, say, global warming, there's scientific evidence on both sides of this argument. I've found a more exhaustive list before, but I'm too lazy to dig it up, but here are links to a few studies that indicate brain damage can occur at blood plasma levels easily reachable from typical ingestion of fluorinated drinking water. http://fluoride-journal.com/03-36-2/362-084.pdf http://www.fluoride-journal.com/00-33-2/332-74.pdf
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/brain/varner-1 998.pdf
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/brain/mullenix 1995.pdf
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/brain/idd.html
when in doubt, I tend to believe the group that doesn't have a monetary interest in the outcome, and fluorinating municipal water supplies subsidizes the chemical industry--guys who have influence and deep pockets. Second, flouride treatment is only effective when it's in contact with the teeth, actually absorbing it into your blood stream is unneccessary, if there's any question about possible adverse health effects, why expose yourself to something that's unneccessary. Third, fluoride has no dosage control, someone who uses hippy organic toothpaste and generally drinks bottled water is getting doses wildly different from someone who cooks with and drinks 8 glasses of tap water a day. Seems like a hamfisted dental hygeine policy to me. That said, yes, I tend to have faith in the CDC, this is just something else to consider.
Ok, I'm preparing for the tin foil hat jokes, but fluoride's actually not good for people. Granted, a treatment that binds fluoride to the surface of the teeth is better than drinking it, but I'd prefer if we didn't fuck with fluoride at all. Almost all fluoride that's produced is merely a biproduct of other chemical reactions. If city governments didn't buy this stuff from chemical plants to put in drinking water, they'd have to dispose of it like any other toxic waste.
golden shower tastes the same as redbull, too.
I think the cd levy thing is true in Canada, but I've never heard about it in the US before. Can someone provide a source?
then the (admittedely rare) individuals who buy blank cds for legal purposes have to pay the tax and get screwed. They tried to institute a blank tape tax in the 80's, and tried to get VCRs taken off the market, too. We know how well that worked out...
What record label is going to give up their music if they know it's good?
they're already giving it up for free--on bittorrent, on emule, etc... the idea is to provide a legal alternative that costs a reasonable amount of money. Even people as stupid as record company executives must be able to understand that making some money of internet downloads is better than making no money.
I phrased it that way as a means of clarification/emphasis because the parent was taking it to mean "hottest year in 100 years" and ignoring the "on record" part. Signficantly different meanings that are worthy of a little overemphasis.
we don't dig up refined fissionable uranium, we did up ore with radiation levels hardly above background. If we were storing unpurified ore, it'd be one thing, but nuclear waste is tremendously more radioactive. And the reason we shouldn't store it in Yucca isn't "made up" the reason is that the engineers who designed the Yucca storage site have said that it the waste would begin leaking into groundwater in 2 or 3 hundred years, long before the radioactivity has decreased significantly.
let's put it this way: 2005 was the warmest year on record since worldwide temperature recording began
even if modern reactor designs that us "scientifically illiterate" people are too dumb to appreaciate make another chernobyl unlikely, problems still exist. where are we going to safely store the radioactive waste for the next 80 zillion years? and nuclear power plants make much better terrorist targets than windwills or solar panels do.
"we come together"? could a google/MS merger be in the works? Paula Abdul obviously thinks so...