Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:summary of SCOTUS case law: "pppphhhhhhtttttt, (Score 1) 248

by Theaetetus (#48604931) Attached to: Sony Demands Press Destroy Leaked Documents

It can also note that disseminating parties may be liable for any damages to Sony that could arise. They need to prove damages though, and there's a lot of news sources involved. Will they do a reverse class-action suit or something? :P

No, but they could sue them collectively under a joint and several liability argument, saying "we were damaged by $X... feel free to figure out which of you pays which percentage of that amongst yourselves," based on a theory that by linking to each other in the articles, they were acting in concert. That wouldn't require proving which individual new source is responsible for which damage.

Comment: Re:IF? (Score 2) 248

by Theaetetus (#48604343) Attached to: Sony Demands Press Destroy Leaked Documents

Has there been any indication that newspapers and such are going to publish full scripts or anything like that? They might report on leaked scripts and torrents containing said scripts, but that's not what a newspaper is going to be interested in.

I think it was one of the Gawker media sites that posted a full (and amusingly terrible) powerpoint presentation from the leaked stuff, full of marketing and distribution plans.

Comment: Re:summary of SCOTUS case law: "pppphhhhhhtttttt, (Score 5, Interesting) 248

by Theaetetus (#48604325) Attached to: Sony Demands Press Destroy Leaked Documents

Mod parent up! (crap, I had points left yesterday.... :)

Parent makes the important point: There's existing SCOTUS case law for this, and Sony's legal-ish threats and demand for press et al to refrain from looking at embarrassing things wouldn't stand up in a stiff breeze, much less in a lower court.

Frankly I'm kind of surprised to see a relatively experienced lawyer such as Boies make a demand like this, even if he is a distinguished douchebag. Usually lawyers like him are concerned about appearances, and making laughable demands that evoke a Streisand effect is bad for business.

Unfortunately, parent is incorrect regarding the SCOTUS case law. Not the AC's fault, though - Eugene Volokh's quoted in the article and makes the same mistake. The case law refers specifically to publishing (actually re-playing) an illegally intercepted phone conversation on a matter of great public interest (specifically public teachers union negotiations with the school board). It explicitly says that its holding doesn't apply to trade secrets, private matters, or gossip... and what's the issue here? Trade secrets, private matters, and gossip.

Boies may be a douchebag, but he's a douchebag who actively practices law and apparently reads the cases in full, unlike the good Professor Volokh, who has never actually practiced.

Comment: IF? (Score 5, Insightful) 248

by Theaetetus (#48603815) Attached to: Sony Demands Press Destroy Leaked Documents

If Sony keeps doing it, their documents will be forever alive in the form of magnet links, formerly torrent file sharing technology.

Regardless, those documents will be floating around torrent sites, even if they do nothing. The horse has left the barn.

But this isn't about trying to actually keep the information under wraps - this is about trying to get some financial recompense. Like, someone let the horse out, and your neighbor suddenly has a sale on fresh horse meat... You're not getting your horse back, but maybe you should get a portion of their unlawfully gained profits.

In particular, the material includes both material under copyright, as well as trade secrets. Copyright law doesn't include a safe harbor for "but I'm a newspaper" or a generic "first amendment!" defense - while papers could publish short excerpts of the leaked info under fair use (17 USC 107), for news or commentary purposes, they could not, say, publish the entire script to the new Bond movie, relying on a defense of "well, we didn't steal it, and the first amendment says we can publish anything we want because we're the media."

Going further, many states' trade secret laws actually include explicit provisions about publishing trade secrets that were obtained unlawfully, even if you weren't the person who originally stole them. And while terrible law professor Eugene Volokh thinks that the Bartnicki case has a first amendment exemption, he's clearly never actually read it - SCOTUS specifically said that it doesn't apply to trade secrets, but for matters of public interest. Now, that may apply to things like Sony's CEO's salary, but it likely doesn't apply to things like advertising campaign plans or product release strategies.

So, if the media publishes the unlawfully obtained trade secrets or publishes the material under copyright in a way that exceeds the bounds of fair use, then they may be financially liable for Sony's damages. That doesn't put the horse back in the barn, since it's gone, man, but it does at least help pay for the new horse (and maybe a better lock).

Comment: Re:View angles (Score 1) 563

by Theaetetus (#48574219) Attached to: The Case For Flipping Your Monitor From Landscape to Portrait

Some monitors are make to be viewed landscape, and when rotated have horrible view angles. I found some at work where the view angle was so bad, only one eye would get a good picture, while the other eye showed a faded & discolored image. Rubber-necking around would find a small sweet spot for viewing.

TLDR; doesn't work well on some monitors.

Do three sentences really merit a TLDR?

Comment: Re:No (Score 2) 545

by Theaetetus (#48536601) Attached to: Should IT Professionals Be Exempt From Overtime Regulations?

For programmers in CA, normally they are non-exempt, although I'm sure many skirt around it. My understanding is if you want a favorable equity package, you'll accept exempt status. If you want an hourly wage and a life, you declare non-exempt.

Both the Department of Labor and the courts disagree with your assessment.

The actual job duties themselves, not the job title, not the method of payment (hourly vs salary), and not the contract, determine if an individual worker is exempt from overtime rules.

This has been challenged time and time again in the courts. The concept of a "working foreman" is often mentioned since management is exempt from overtime. If the individual can show that at least half the time is spent on non-management tasks they are not exempt. If you spend 49% of your time or less doing management tasks you are not exempt. Even if your job title is "Managing Director", even if your contract calls you an exempt worker.

Although you are correct about the fact that the job duties matter, rather than the simple title, and you are correct about the fact that companies will give you a title, declare that you're salaried and therefore exempt, and try all sorts of other tricks to avoid paying overtime, you're wrong about one crucial thing - there's also an exemption for programmers:

Computer workers may be exempt under any of the "white collar exemptions," as bona fide executive or administrative employees. (See, FLSA Coverage.) For example, a "network administrator" may be performing administratively exempt job duties. There are, in addition, some special rules which apply to employees who work with computers and permit them to be classified as exempt even if they don't meet the usual requirements for exempt executives or administrators. However, there are special provisions which exempt some computer employees who might not otherwise qualify as "professionally" exempt. These include systems analysts, programmers (who "write code"), or software engineers. More specifically, the special computer employee exemption applies to workers who apply systems analysis techniques and procedures to determine hardware, software, or system functional specifications, or who design, develop, test or modify computer systems or programs based on user or design specifications.

And that's what the article and thread are discussing - programmers. Here is the fact sheet from the DOL. If you:

  • are compensated either on a salary or fee basis at a rate not less than $455 per week or, if compensated on an hourly basis, at a rate not less than $27.63 an hour; and
  • are employed as a computer systems analyst, computer programmer, software engineer or other similarly skilled worker in the computer field,

then you probably are exempt from overtime.

Comment: Re:Clickbait headline (Score 1) 436

by Theaetetus (#48497065) Attached to: Supreme Court To Decide Whether Rap Lyric Threats Are Free Speech

if threats are judged from the perspective of a reasonable recipient, rather than the intent of the sender, then the "oh, everyone makes death threats online, they'd never follow through" defense fizzles away.

Uh, you mean the opposite? If you can demonstrate that there really is an internet subculture where "everyone makes death threats", then surely you have demonstrated that at least in that subculture no reasonable recipient would interpret them literally? Assuming the "threat" is made within the context of that subculture, that is. Reasonableness has to be context dependent, after all.

If the recipient is another person in that subculture, sure. So, no, screaming "I'll kill you, n00b" during a CoD deathmatch wouldn't be considered a real threat, but sending death threats over Twitter to a journalist or developer would be.

Comment: Re:And this is how perverted our system has gotten (Score 1) 436

by Theaetetus (#48493845) Attached to: Supreme Court To Decide Whether Rap Lyric Threats Are Free Speech

It's perfectly relevant. You have no more right to restrict what a person says any more than you have to dictate fashion (though the censors are trying to do that also). Their dogma is no better than Sharia law. All you are doing is validating *The devil made me do it* defense. That's not a good idea, but it does keep the slaves from rebelling, so maybe it is good idea, huh? Who wants a bunch of unruly untouchables around?

Yes, that's exactly it: preventing someone from making threats is no better than Sharia law.

Anyway, since we're in Crazytown and you're clearly the Mayor, there's no need to keep discussing this.

Comment: Re:And this is how perverted our system has gotten (Score 1) 436

by Theaetetus (#48492859) Attached to: Supreme Court To Decide Whether Rap Lyric Threats Are Free Speech

If that's the way it has to be, Then I insist that short skirts and exposed cleavage incite rape, and we can just accept that free will does not exist, that we are compelled to act by one's words or appearance. Some pigs will just have to be a little less equal.

Would you like to try again, but with a comment that makes sense and is in some way relevant to the thread, rather than just ranting about biatches accusing you of harassment?

Comment: Re:And this is how perverted our system has gotten (Score 2, Insightful) 436

by Theaetetus (#48491773) Attached to: Supreme Court To Decide Whether Rap Lyric Threats Are Free Speech

I don't even know where to start with this one... The first amendment - like anything written in the Constitution is absolute. It has to be. If it weren't then we could all ignore any law we choose and even ignore rulings of the Supreme Court because their powers are based on the same document. So either the Constitution is absolute or it is not - but you can't have it both ways.

However, even with that I don't see how it matters... The bill of rights is supposed to keep us from the Federal Government taking too many rights and amassing too much power (and in doing so has given the federal government way too much power - just as the opponents of the bill of rights originally feared). It should have absolutely no influence in a court case between two individuals.


I don't know why this got "insightful" points. Let's see... First, the free speech protections in the first amendment have never been absolute: from yelling fire in a crowded theater to threatening to kill someone, there have always been reasonable limits. In fact, no limitation in the Bill of Rights is absolute - we don't allow prison inmates to have guns, you can't practice your human sacrifice-based religion, etc.

Second, this has nothing to do with "a court case between two individuals." See the title, Elonis vs. United States? That's a criminal conviction - Elonis is appealing because he was convicted of a crime. And the government certainly has "influence in a court case" where the government is one of the parties.

At least your signature seems to be correct. So there's that.

Comment: Clickbait headline (Score 4, Insightful) 436

by Theaetetus (#48491653) Attached to: Supreme Court To Decide Whether Rap Lyric Threats Are Free Speech
This case has nothing to do with whether "rap lyric threats" are free speech, but whether convicting someone for making a threat should require that the accused intended to make a threat, or whether a reasonable person who received the message would interpret it as an intentional threat. The former is very difficult to prove and a simple disclaimer would obviate it: "oh, those were just rap lyrics when I said 'I'm coming to your house this evening to cut your throat, you biatch.' Ha ha ha!"

The wider implication is in the area of cyberbullying and online death threats - if threats are judged from the perspective of a reasonable recipient, rather than the intent of the sender, then the "oh, everyone makes death threats online, they'd never follow through" defense fizzles away.

Comment: Re:A nice foil to the previous story. (Score -1, Flamebait) 312

by Theaetetus (#48485813) Attached to: In UK Study, Girls Best Boys At Making Computer Games

I'm male so I'm not really an expert on Barbie but, everything I have ever seen and heard about "her" indicates that she's an unrealistic rich girl (or gold digger) that is obsessed about her body and possessing things and that the only thing she really encourages young girls to be is trophy wives with maybe an interesting side job for fun.

(i) Announces self as male;
(ii) Admits self lacks knowledge in a particular field;
(iii) Makes wild generalizations anyway.

There's a reason they call it "mansplaining", y'know.

Comment: Re:It was an almost impossible case to prosecute (Score 1) 1128

by Theaetetus (#48464101) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting

No, no you wouldn't. You would only know what the prosecution and defense could find and present. Nothing more, nothing less.

Which, at least, is an adversarial system.

Of course it's an adversarial system. It always has been, and always should be. There are two sides in a dispute. Each side is not impartial, the goal is to let each partial side make its case while an impartial third party (judge, jurors) decides which side has made its case the best.

... unlike the grand jury proceedings, in which just the prosecutor presents inculpatory evidence and asks for an indictment. Or at least, that's the normal system. Here, the prosecutor didn't even ask for charges, meaning you had no one who was adverse to the cop.

Comment: Re:Moderate BS (Score 1) 1128

by Theaetetus (#48462679) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting

You're now claiming witnesses don't exist? After you started off claiming there were 7, six of whom were African-American? You can't even keep your own story straight.

I realize that English is not your native tongue, so I appreciate how much you're trying here. But we're talking about YOUR assertion that the documents in front of your eyes don't include the testimony of eye witnesses. Or have you finally got around to reading it, and you're changing your story, just like the debunked media-frenzy "witnesses" did?

Now you're lying about what I said, even though everyone can just scroll up and read it? Wow. Unbelievable. I never said that "the documents don't include the testimony of eye witnesses" and you know it, which is why you don't even use a quote here, even though Slashdot has a big ol' "Quote Parent" button. It's amazing.You actually think that you can get away with bullshiat like that?

What I actually said was that the documents don't include what you claimed, which was - and here I provide an exact quote, because I'm not a lying piece of shiat like you:

Multiple witnesses (including half a dozen African Americans who came forward on their own to the police, and weren't interested in media attention) corroborated all of this, including what happened next (Brown turns around and moves at Wilson, who fires a few times, winging Brown - Wilson STOPS shooting and again tells Brown to stop - Brown then charges at Wilson who shoots again until Brown stops).

Those are your words. And my words were:

You say I know where the testimony is and that I'm "pretending" that I can't find it? Bullshiat - you're the one who's claiming it exists. Cite some page numbers.

I never said that there were no eyewitnesses. I said that there aren't 7 of them saying what you claim they're saying. Instead, there are actually a bunch of eyewitnesses that say things very different from what you claim they said, including that Brown was surrendering. Heck, one eyewitness says that the cop shot him execution style in the head at point blank range. That's a far cry from what you're claiming.

Anyways, your misrepresentations of the witness testimony aside, you've now been caught in such a complete and obvious lie over just these last few posts that no one could possibly believe anything you write here, so I think we're done. Goodbye, hypocritical, lying troll.

1 Billion dollars of budget deficit = 1 Gramm-Rudman