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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:It will not happen (Score 1) 104

I always hear this refrain in situations like this. But suppose one of the contributions went something like this:

if (flag1 != "value") { doIt(); }

How the hell do you re-write something like that? An "if" statement keys on the value of a single variable and conditionally executes a function. There are some things for which there is only one solution.

If there's truly only one possible solution for something that simple, then it isn't copyrightable anyway. Copyright requires some amount of creative expression, and something like that wouldn't meet the minimum level of creativity.

Comment Re:Problem is a matter of Fraud. Rent vs Sell (Score 1) 242

I've worked with lawyers enough already, thank you very much.

a) It depends on how the fraud laws are written. If the law says something like, "only the following specific things are fraud", then yes, it would require changing the law. If, however, the law is general, such as saying something like "any deception regarding the terms of a transaction", then that law can be applied to a case such as this one. To be honest, I don't care enough to look them up, and the specifics will vary by state anyway.

b) As far as I know, "buyer beware" is not a law. In fact, if that were the case, fraud wouldn't be illegal.

c) Maybe to make it a binding precedent across the entire country, but I doubt the Supreme Court would accept a case like this, so any lower court rulings would stand.

Comment Re:Problem is a matter of Fraud. Rent vs Sell (Score 4, Interesting) 242

We need a simple law that clarifies this point. Out law the use of the words 'buy' or 'sell' when dealing with a license - including physical products that include a necessary license, such as those evil John Deere Tractors.

Then when some shmuck tries to sell a John Deere tractor, arrest them for fraud, as they are actually renting it to you for an unspecified amount of time. If they want to use the words 'buy' or sell', they have to include free-as-in-speech software on it. Otherwise, it is fraud, punishable by a fine.

We don't need an additional law for that, we just a need a judge and/or jury to decide that it counts as fraud.

Comment Re:WTF (Score 1) 249

Incorrect. The Hawaiian judge based his opinion upon "intent" as expressed verbally by members of the Trump campaign in the run-up to the election. The actual (second) order was more carefully written to avoid any reference to religion (here, read it yourself.) There is not a legal scholar, Left or Right, in the U.S. who believes that the partisan Hawaiian ruling will withstand appeal.

If a person didn't read the Washington judge's opinion, in which he cited precedent for finding that statements indicating discriminatory intent can be used to invalidate a law, then he isn't much of a legal scholar.

It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims. See, e.g., Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 534 (1993) (“The Free Exercise Clause, like the Establishment Clause, extends beyond facial discrimination. . . . Official action that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by mere compliance with the requirement of facial neutrality.”); Larson, 456 U.S. at 254-55 (holding that a facially neutral statute violated the Establishment Clause in light of legislative history demonstrating an intent to apply regulations only to minority religions); Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266- 68 (1977) (explaining that circumstantial evidence of intent, including the historical background of the decision and statements by decisionmakers, may be considered in evaluating whether a governmental action was motivated by a discriminatory purpose).

Comment Re:Court: Due process for people it doesn't apply (Score 1) 56

The circuit court cited the due process clause in respect to lawful permanent residents. The White House had issued instructions that the policy doesn't apply to lawful permanent residents. The district court indicated that the White House might, in the future, change that policy, and if they changed it there would potentially be a due process issue. That sounds like twisted reasoning to me - stay the actual, existing order because some other order which could be issued in the future might be wrong.

They did. As they said, White House counsel can say that the order doesn't apply to permanent residents, but because such a person is not in the chain of command, their statement does not carry the authority that an executive order carries. "The Government has offered no authority establishing that the White House counsel is empowered to issue an amended order superseding the Executive Order signed by the President... Nor has the Government established that the White House counsel’s interpretation of the Executive Order is binding on all executive branch officials responsible for enforcing the Executive Order. The White House counsel is not the President, and he is not known to be in the chain of command for any of the Executive Departments." It isn't enough that "the White House" says the order doesn't apply to certain people; such a change would have to be in an order signed by the president.

The court explicitly declined to comment on the establishment of religion clause. An establishment claim would be interesting- the President also blocked a country which happens to be majority Christian - is that discrimination against Christians? If the majority of the country affected happen to be tall, would that be discrimination against tall people? Interesting.

They did comment on it, they just didn't issue a formal decision (which isn't really their job at this point). They noted that the intent of a law matters (with cited precedent) and that there are serious questions regarding the intent of this executive order. Just because the text of the executive order doesn't have the word "Muslim" in it, the order can still be illegally discriminatory if the intent is to target a certain religion.

Btw I think Trump is a jackass, and I voted against him twice. I also think the law, as written, very clearly allows him to have this policy, even *if* it's a dumb policy. (I know nothing about Yemen, so I can't say whether or not the government there is unwilling or unable to provide documentation for screening).

The law as written can allow whatever it wants, but the courts can still invalidate the law if they decide that it contradicts the Constitution.

Comment Re:Court is to interpret law, not override it (Score 1) 56

If you wish to make a claim that the Constitution overrides this law I'd be glad to discuss that with you. If so, which article of the Constitution do you have in mind?

I'd have to go back and check the Circuit Court's opinion, but I believe it was the Establishment of Religion, Due Process, and (I think) Equal Protection clauses.

Comment Re:Massive Giveaway to Telecoms (Score 4, Informative) 292

...and there would be tax incentives and tax credits for companies building high-speed networks.

Translation: "Let's give billions more taxpayer dollars to the worthless telecoms/cable companies."

That was my initial reaction, too. This will probably turn into federal subsidies for telecom companies without any kind of requirement that the telecom companies actually do what the subsidies were supposed to pay for.

Comment Re:Thanks for reminding us (Score 1) 152

Also, if you don't know who has interest in a property, that's fine. You might not actually have a right to know who has an interest in any property you want to acquire.

I don't know if that's the case in any state in the United States. I think property ownership is a matter of public record.

Slashdot Top Deals

Many people are unenthusiastic about their work.

Working...