Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Personally... (Score 1) 183

How would you prosecute a rape case without the jury assuming the accused was male and the victim female?

How would you prosecute a child abuse case without admitting that the victim is, indeed, a child?

How would you prosecute an aggravated assault case without showing the disparity of force between assailant and victim (or, conversely, how would you defend a the case without allowing the accused to present disparity of force as justifying his defensive actions)?

Comment: Re: Welcome to the U.S. of A. (Score 4, Informative) 148

The estate is a separate legal entity from any person. Contracts that flow into the estate remain binding upon the estate. Ergo, she doesn't need to have signed it; it's still binding upon the estate.

The distinction that people seem to be missing is that nobody is squelching her freedom of speech as an individual, but rather as a beneficiary of the estate. Again, remember that the estate is its own legal entity. She's not being sued as J. Random Person, but rather as somebody who profits from that estate. As a beneficiary, she's also subject to its contracts. If she breaches those contracts, she's subject to suit in her capacity as beneficiary, and can be forced to disgorge her profits from the estate.

(Note: I practice in probate law.)

Comment: Re: Welcome to the U.S. of A. (Score 1) 148

" If she doesn't want to abide by the terms of the contract, she should at least be compelled to disgorge the money she was paid."

Certainly doable, but then that would generally void the contract on both sides and the movie itself is lost. So no, the company doing the suing doesn't want that.

I'd like to know if she herself signed the contract. From the sounds of it, she's being bound by it the actions of the Estate itself. So... did she promise to keep her mouth shut, or did someone else promise she'd keep her mouth shut?

If she wants to enjoy the profits of the estate she should also abide by its constraints. Nothing it preventing her from completely disclaiming her rights in same.

Comment: Re:So they are doing what? (Score 1) 509

by Maxwell'sSilverLART (#48782327) Attached to: Anonymous Declares War Over Charlie Hebdo Attack

Not an FFL, just a $200 tax stamp (which won't be issued without a background check, but still). It takes a Type 03 FFL to transfer an NFA item, but not to own one. And yes, Obama's ATF will issue it as long as the paperwork comes back clean, just as it will with a suppressor, machine gun, short-barreled rifle or shotgun, or any other NFA item.

Comment: Re:So they are doing what? (Score 2) 509

by Maxwell'sSilverLART (#48782285) Attached to: Anonymous Declares War Over Charlie Hebdo Attack

You're sitting in front of a terminal that gives you access to information in a way that makes the great library at Alexandria look like a comic book store, and you can't be arsed to look up what the 17th Amendment says before commenting on it?

The 17th Amendment does not give two senators to each state. That was written into the original Constitution; the bicameral system was a compromise between those who wanted population-proportional representation (i.e. the House of Representatives) and equal-state representation (i.e. the Senate).

The 17th Amendment changed the method for choosing senators from selection by the state legislature (US Constitution, Article 1, Section 3, Clause 1) to a popular vote by the people of the state. The Founders had very specific reasons for having the state legislatures choose senators instead of the people; the 17th Amendment changed the balance of power significantly.

Comment: Re:Subject Cop To Same Spying They Use On Us (Score 1) 219

That's not the way do to it. The camera should be recording for the whole shift, but if the officer doesn't unholster a weapon, that day's footage gets erased at the end of the shift. If a weapon is drawn, footage around that event would be saved. Less privacy worries for the officers, and more incentive for them to resolve situations without firing.

Like, for example, choking the victim to death. Cf. Eric Garner, etc.

Administration: An ingenious abstraction in politics, designed to receive the kicks and cuffs due to the premier or president. -- Ambrose Bierce