Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment Re: Row row row your boat (Score 2) 162

Exactly the opposite. Streams took easy to read and understand for loops used by every language on earth and replaced it with gibberish that you need to work through to understand, and is far more difficult top debug as there's no damn place to put a break point or print statement. They're banned everywhere I've heard of

Comment Re:Case Backwards (Score 1) 607

FFS dude, they're all derived from common law; you realize you are grasping at straws here by trying to limit this now to Virginia... but ok fine... let's play your little game:


We have previously recognized that an action for common law trespass to land derives from the "general principle of law [that] every person is entitled to the exclusive and peaceful enjoyment of his own land, and to redress if such enjoyment shall be wrongfully interrupted by another.

Tate v. Ogg, 170 Va. 95, 99, 195 S.E. 496, 498 (1938).

We have also recognized:
[A] trespass is an unauthorized entry onto property which results in interference with the property owner's possessory interest therein. Thus, in order to maintain a cause of action for trespass to land, the plaintiff must have had possession of the land, either actual or constructive, at the time the trespass was committed. In addition, to recover for trespass to land, a plaintiff must prove an invasion that interfered with the right of exclusive possession of the land, and that was a direct result of some act committed by the defendant. Any physical entry upon the surface of the land constitutes such an invasion, whether the entry is a walking upon it, flooding it with water, casting objects upon it, or otherwise.
Cooper v. Horn, 248 Va. 417, 423, 448 S.E.2d 403, 406 (1994) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

Significantly, for the purposes of this case, Virginia applies the modified common law rule applicable to surface water. Mullins, 226 Va. at 589, 311 S.E.2d at 112. Under this rule, "surface water is a common enemy, and each landowner may fight it off as best he can, provided he does so reasonably and in good faith and not wantonly, unnecessarily or carelessly." Id. (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted).
We observed in McGehee v. Tidewater Railway Co.:
Two general rules prevail in the United States with

emphasis mine. But let me repeat it here again for you:

"Any physical entry upon the surface of the land constitutes such an invasion, whether the entry is a walking upon it, flooding it with water, casting objects upon it, or otherwise."

Are we done yet?

If I recall correctly, you earlier cited criminal code as the law which may require the stricter test for the defendant to get jailtime over it, but trespass is also a civil matter; and he can definitely be subject to a lawsuit based on it.

Drone use may also fall under the nuisance law. I read another virginia opinion where 'dust and noise' from a neighboring property under construction was rejected as a trespass suit, but the plaintiff was invited to refile it as a nuisance suit. That said, I think drones still fall under trespass as the operator is in much more direct control over what the drone does, and the drone represents a real physical invasion in a way dust particulates don't. Of course, until someone actually takes one to court in virginia it will be an open question. But as a legal theory it is pretty sound.

Comment Re:Misleading (Score 1) 140

Also, how is paying close attention for an entire trip an unreasonable / unrealistic expectation?

People cannot sit there at the ready for hours on end.

If it was, it'd be an unreasonable and/or unrealistic expectation to teach someone how to drive, which involves the exact kind of attention as monitoring the autopilot system. Yet, millions of people do this daily without trouble.

No, actually driving; is a continual feedback loop that is completely different from sitting there "pepetually ready to drive but not actually driving".

Comment Re:Absurd fear (Score 1) 110

But how much does this actually happen? Do you need a video out port for that conference room weekly? Monthly?

Does it matter? The less often I need one the more likely I won't have it with me when I do. FWIW It happens often enough that if I could buy a macbook pro line with a few more ports I absolutely would.

In any case you seem to be 'moving the goal posts'.

And perhaps more importantly, how common is your job?

Pretty common.

I'd expect anyone doing anything substantially IT related would run into the same needs now and again.

While I personally have done customer facing presentations with my laptop; many of my peers who don't do that much still do presentations internally to business units, at meetings, etc. Would we all pay $10 more and put up with our laptop being 2mm thicker for a gigabit port, another USB port, and another video port type? Hell yeah. And 9$ of that 10 would still be profit for apple.

Comment Re:Case Backwards (Score 1) 607

There. I've quoted my law. Care to quote the law you've based your opinion on?

Heh, my opinion is based on the same law actually. Lets look at how lawyers, courts, and the legal system actually treat it...


For example:

Tiger, an avid golfer, goes down to the local course and begins to play. He intends for his first shot to land on the fairway and the shot lands perfectly in the middle of the fairway. Unfortunately, and unbeknownst to Tiger, the land that the fairway is on does not belong to the golf course. It belongs to Arnold. Tiger will be liable here because he intended for the ball to land on Arnoldâ(TM)s property. It is true that Tiger did not know that the fairway was on Arnoldâ(TM)s property but, for purposes of intent, Tiger did intend to hit the ball onto Arnoldâ(TM)s property. Therefore, he is liable.

As you can see from this example, the intrusion onto the plaintiffâ(TM)s land can be committed by personal entry onto the property, or it can be committed by causing some object (or another person) to enter the property. See Rogers v. Board of Road Commissioners 30 N.W.2d 358 (Mich. 1948).


Trespass to land occurs where a person directly enters upon another's land without permission, or remains upon the land, or places or projects any object upon the land.

Here's another... this time an actual appeals case:

Since 1981, the defendants have owned and operated a private golf course in Rehoboth known as the Middlebrook Country Club (Middlebrook). â In the late 1990's, the plaintiffs moved into newly constructed homes adjacent to the ninth hole of the course. â After moving into their homes, both plaintiffs discovered that errant golf balls struck by golfers playing the course came onto their properties with alarming frequency, and after unsuccessfully attempting to negotiate a mutually acceptable resolution with the defendants, the plaintiffs âsought injunctive relief and damages in the Superior Court. â After a trial without a jury, a judge of that court concluded that the defendants' operation of the golf course did not support the plaintiffs' nuisance claim, denied the requested relief, and directed entry of judgment dismissing the complaint.3 âBecause the recurrent entry by golf balls onto the plaintiffs' properties constitutes a continuing trespass, we conclude that the trial judge erred in denying injunctive relief âSee Hennessy v. Boston, 265 Mass. 559, 561, 164 N.E. 470 (1929); âFenton v. Quaboag Country Club, Inc., 353 Mass. 534, 538, 233 N.E.2d 216 (1968).

emphasis mine... plenty of others.

The criminal code as written has LONG been interpreted by the courts to treat a 'the person enters or remains on or in property of another' as including invasions by objects that the person controls.

At this point, I think you've got to agree with me that the drone can absolutely be ruled a trespass to land if it is low enough to violate the property owners airspace. What exactly that height is, is up in the air, but court precedent including one to the supremes give us property rights to at least 80'

Comment Re:Washington State uses this fancy new method (Score 1) 159

You can require photo IDs all you want. But if you do, you have to ensure that everyone eligible to vote can get one without hurdles. This means not charging for them, not reducing the number of places that can issue them in areas where you don't like the way people vote, and not demanding ridiculous supporting documentation that few people would readily have to issue one.

Comment Re:So Trump is creating jobs... (Score 1) 159

Russia doesn't give a fuck about H1B visas and immigration. If anything, they are considered harmful, because they provide an avenue for "brain drain".

On the other hand, they would very much like US to get into a trade war with China (which would force Chinese to cooperate with Russia more seriously), and to abandon its NATO allies in Europe.

Slashdot Top Deals

Mommy, what happens to your files when you die?