Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Guns are not the problem... (Score 1) 607

It's not quite as insane as you would like to suggest. If you read the summary below, and apply it to the examples you offered, you'll see that none would be examples in which you'd be legally justified in using deadly force.

Laws vary by state. In Pennsylvania (From http://www.pennlago.com/justif...):

Summary of The Castle Doctrine:

  • You must not be the initial aggressor. You have to come to the situation free of any provocation. You have to come to the situation with "clean hands."
  • There is no duty to retreat at home or at work (remember the co-worker exception).
  • There is a presumption that you reasonably believed deadly force was necessary to avoid death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, or sexual intercourse by force or threat, IF:
  • Somebody is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering your dwelling, residence or car (provided you're in the car);
  • Somebody has unlawfully and forcefully entered your dwelling, residence or car (provided you're in the car); or

  • Somebody is or is attempting to unlawfully and forcefully remove you or somebody else, against the will of the individual being removed, from your dwelling, residence or car (if they're removing you or trying to, it's safe to say you're in the car).
  • The person has to be someone who has no right to be there. So, it is always best to identify your target. You cannot claim the Castle Doctrine protections if your teenager is sneaking back into the house and you tragically and mistakenly think it is an intruder.
  • You cannot invite the intruder into the house or car just to get a free shot at him. The entry has to be forceful and unlawful, unless we are dealing with a kidnapping or removal scenario.
  • If you are in your dwelling or residence, and all of the above are met, you are presumed to act reasonably in the eyes of the law in the use of deadly force.
  • If you are in your car, and all of the above are met, you are presumed to act reasonably in the eyes of the law in the use of deadly force.

Summary of Stand Your Ground:

  • Be aware that the law is not as extensive as many suggest.
  • If you have no legal right to be where you are, are engaged in criminal activity, or are in illegal possession of a firearm, the protections do not apply.
  • If your attacker does not display what is or appears to be a deadly weapon, the protections do not apply (you must retreat if it can be done with complete safety).
  • You must reasonably believe deadly force is immediately necessary to do so to protect yourself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, or sexual intercourse by force or threat.
  • Stand Your Ground does not protect uses of force against known law enforcement officers.
  • If all of the above requirements are met, the law eliminates the duty to retreat, and the use of deadly force is permitted.

Submission + - Malibu Media stay lifted, motion to quash denied

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: In the federal court for the Eastern District of New York, where all Malibu Media cases have been stayed for the past year, the Court has lifted the stay and denied the motion to quash in the lead case, thus permitting all 84 cases to move forward. In his 28-page decision (PDF), Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke accepted the representations of Malibu's expert, one Michael Patzer from a company called Excipio, that in detecting BitTorrent infringement he relies on "direct detection" rather than "indirect detection", and that it is "not possible" for there to be misidentification.

Comment Re:Not surprising (Score 1) 499

> I have never been given any opportunity to negotiate on salary.

I'm wondering if I'm misunderstanding your wording, or if hiring & promoting works differently for people other than myself.

I've never been GIVEN any opportunity to negotiate on salary. When I've gotten raises, it has been because I went to my boss and said I need more money.

So, I'm wondering if you've tried going to your boss and asking for more money? Are you being as passive as it seems to me, or am I just misunderstanding what you said?

Comment Re:Actually 3rd point was agreement with trial jud (Score 1) 23

Actually whoever the new guy is, I don't find the site to be "improved" at all; seems a little crummy. The story was butchered and incorrectly interpreted, and the all important software for interaction seems less interactive.

But what do I know?

As to my absence I've been a bit overwhelmed by work stuff, sorry about that, it's no excuse :)

Comment Actually 3rd point was agreement with trial judge (Score 4, Informative) 23

The story as published implies that the ruling overruled the lower court on the 3 issues. In fact, it was agreeing with the trial court on the third issue -- that the sporadic instances of Vimeo employees making light of copyright law did not amount to adopting a "policy of willful blindness".

Submission + - Appeals court slams record companies on DMCA in Vimeo case

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: In the long-simmering appeal in Capitol Records v. Vimeo, the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upheld Vimeo's positions on many points regarding the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. In its 55 page decision (PDF) the Court ruled that (a) the Copyright Office was dead wrong in concluding that pre-1972 sound recordings aren't covered by the DMCA, (b) the judge was wrong to think that Vimeo employees' merely viewing infringing videos was sufficient evidence of "red flag knowledge", and (c) a few sporadic instances of employees being cavalier about copyright law did not amount to a "policy of willful blindness" on the part of the company. The Court seemed to take particular pleasure in eviscerating the Copyright Office's rationales. Amicus curiae briefs in support of Vimeo had been submitted by a host of companies and organizations including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, Public Knowledge, Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, Microsoft, Pinterest, Tumblr, and Twitter.

Comment Re:Feature list (Score 2) 115

While I agree not everything should last forever, it should still be the goal, at least until the things we get are perfectly recyclable.

I just purchased a Nexus 6p. I was upgrading from an HTC One M7 GPE. I did not want to get a new phone, but the battery life of my HTC one had dropped to the point where it was barely usable. It went from lasting all day without a charge to needing multiple charges per day. The HTC One is the first phone I've owned that I had to retire because it failed. My wife had one that also died "early".

I don't have a problem if you decide you need or want a new phone & abandon a working phone to move on. However, I absolutely HATE being forced off a phone that does everything I need just because the manufacturer wants to be able to sell me another one.

Planned obsolescence should never be permitted for anything that can't be completely recycled. Accidental obsolescence should be good enough.

Comment Re: Not apples to apples (Score 1) 1023

Actually, anyone who pays attention will know. The food will be more consistently prepared.

If they calibrate everything properly, and set it up correctly, every burger, every fry, every shake will be perfect. If you set it up so that the customer enters their own order, you will eliminate the multitude of errors that are introduced into the process by the quality of humans that are currently involved in the process.

Of course, if they fail to set it up the way it should be, every burger will have half the cheese stuck to the wrapper, the fries will be burnt and over-salted every time, the sodas will be handed to the customer with too much ice... ...actually, that describes every experience at a couple fast food joints in Lansdale, PA. They need to re-calibrate their robots.

Comment Re:The usual negative logic here (Score 1) 266

As someone who rarely flies, I still pay for the TSA. I don't care about who they inconvenience, but I do care about the colossal corruption and waste of money that the organization represents.

My opinion is that the people in power (Congress, Bush, Obama, et al) have done far more damage than the terrorists did, and they are in fact doing the terrorists work for them. The founders of the USA would be disgusted by what we've become.

Ultimately, I'm not frightened of the terrorists. I'm frightened by the people in power who are using the threat of terrorism to frighten cowardly Americans into giving up our rights for the perception of safety. I'm frightened by the huge number of Americans who seem to be willing to abandon their principles because they think it will let them live a longer life.

Slashdot Top Deals

Mommy, what happens to your files when you die?

Working...