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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:"...the same as trespassing." (Score 1) 1011 1011

Texas is the only state that allows deadly force to be used in defense of property. This is a case where Texas is wrong and the rest of the country is right.

Not really.....

An otherwise law abiding person who shoots an intruder/invader that is definitely a criminal thief/vandal who was wrecking their life or making it not possible for them to enjoy their property/life for fear of everything being taken away definitely doesn't belong in jail.

To say otherwise is valuing the criminal's living state above their victims' lives.

A huge percentage of the people who would be willing to confront you and you need to defend property against are people who are also likely to take somebody's life.

It's much better for the criminal's life to be in danger and victims in their own home to have all possible self-help options legal and available, as this provides a stronger deterrent against committing crimes in the first place.

Comment Re:"...the same as trespassing." (Score 1) 1011 1011

I can use non-lethal force. There are lots of options available.

If you use non-lethal force, then the criminal can respond with lethal force, OR force that would require you to use lethal force in order to defend your life.

A claim of Self-Defense does not protect you from criminal prosecution in that case ---- if you instigated the threat against yourself by attempting non-lethal force, Then the option of claiming self-defense is no longer available, So this is even worse.... you would be putting yourself in danger with no lawful option to use lethal force if the criminal changes his mind and decides to kill.

Comment Re: "...the same as trespassing." (Score 1) 1011 1011

If someone throws a ball onto (or over) your property, is that person tresspassing?

If they intentionally threw it over, then it is an infringement. If they threw it over and they broke something, then they are responsible to pay for damages.

If they threw a ball onto your property then ran onto your property to attempt to go retrieve it, THEN they are trespassing, especially if they went over a fence or other obstructions at your perimeter to walk onto your property.

Comment Re:Third Dimension (Score 1) 1011 1011

That is too high.

Say instead: up to the level of commercial aircraft UNLESS the operator is a licensed airplane or helicopter pilot, or explicit permission is obtained from property owner in advance.

Also, the manufacturers should be required to adopt a standard that allows a property owner to place beacons at corners of their property and automatically deny entry to all automatic drones.

Comment Re:Can't stop it (Score 1) 428 428

the supervisor was shown the door rather quickly, that tech had friends in high places.

Very effective.... use a sacrificial supervisor/lower-level-employee to break the law and fire folks over Section 7 rights exercise / unionization attempts.. Supervisor fired, and plausible deniability regained.

In theory they could still be sued, but it's probably exceedingly unlikely.

That's why... if you want to do a unionization effort, then you better make sure it succeeds, and ideally involve observers outside the company with legal assistance.

Initially... some verbal discussions of pay information in safe place off work premises is probably harder for management to combat.

Ideally, there would be legal papers written up, letters already crafted, and backup plans established to address retaliation attempts, before management becomes aware... if an organizer gets canned, then management should be served with legal papers the same day.

Comment Re:Won't allow forwarding? (Score 1) 198 198

No.... it's a 3rd party messaging service using HTML E-mail and a custom browser extension. To enforce the "self-destruct" rule, the e-mail is hosted on the Dmail provider's mail servers instead of the content being sent in the e-mail message.

Nothing to see here..... I'm not going to be accepting any e-mail sent using such a service. I will tell the sender "No, send me a normal e-mail message; I can't read that one."

Comment Re:Can't stop it (Score 1) 428 428

if google fired a significant number of those people, they'd have an unwinnable class action suit on their hands

There will be enough plausible deniability to go around when they batch those dismissals with their next mass layoff that includes people not on the list as well.

And they don't have to fire them all at once..... just make sure that over time the people putting themselves on the list don't do well on the company, and those that are promoted are always the people that maintain the expected confidentiality.

They can start an informal informal internal investigation to figure out who was responsible for setting this whole thing up.

Then have a discussion with their respective managers and make sure their next performance review will reflect abysmal performance.

And promote the people not on that list offer benefits and bonuses conjoined with a confidentiality requirement on those bonus deals....

Comment Re:Can't stop it (Score 1) 428 428

Pattern is the evidence of discrimination

No... Pattern warrants investigation.

I'm just going to say that the case says nothing about this issue; discrimination is a totally different bit of legal code, it's also a taboo in society with different status in the courtroom. Find a case where an employee was laid off or fired, and the employer was fined a big sum, since it was found to be retaliation for divulging salary, even though the employer said they had a very different reason.

they don't put that they fired them because they were pregnant.

The employee had a conversation with their boss where they were urged to quit or told their performance would be bad because they were pregnant.

They didn't have a credible reason for the firing, And their management created witnesses to a scheme for creating a bogus reason to fire.

A manager creating a scheme to frame someone for a firing offense seems pretty convincing that there is not a legal reason for the firing, otherwise they would not feel a need to do something in order to falsify a reason, since a manager can just fire them.

Comment Re:Can't stop it (Score 1) 428 428

$185 million in damages to a former employee

For overt acts involving sex-based discrimination and discrimination based on pregnancy.

They could have avoided paying out damages if they weren't actively discriminating based on sex And their firing reason was based on performance reviews showing a failure by the employee to do their job w.o./ insinuation that pregnancy was a reason for the firing.

Comment Re:Can't stop it (Score 4, Interesting) 428 428

Yup. Same law that says you can unionize says they can't stop you from sharing pay and benefits information.

The law says they cannot; However, most employers feel the law is unfair to the employer and may very well intentionally disobey the law in a subtle manner.

If they find you shared your salary, then your company might find another reason to fire you and terminate you for that other reason. In an at-will state it's easier..... "According to the latest performance review, you're just not a good fit for our company, so we have to let you go."

Google could technically do the same for everyone on that spreadsheet. Sharing their own salary info would not be mentioned on the official papers as reason for termination, But their accessing/showing the spreadsheet could be grounds for termination upon suspicion of gaining unauthorized access to HR systems.

Companies need to make the money, and employment costs going up would be a huge negative for the shareholders and managers' bonuses.

You can't go home again, unless you set $HOME.

Working...