|
Zero VGS posted:Speaking of, I want to settle an argument. If I got a laser so powerful that I could project an image of a giant dong onto the moon, can anyone take legal action? I would think you might be liable to everyone in your hemisphere for a Public Nuisance claim
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 05:29 |
|
|
blarzgh posted:I would think you might be liable to everyone in your hemisphere for a Public Nuisance claim there would probably be jurisdictional issues more importantly, I suspect such a powerful laser would violate 21 CFR 1040.10 et seq., and possibly 18 USC 2, § 39A.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 01:59
|
|
|
The fact that you pay taxes on whatever property you “own” else you lose it is evidence that ownership is an illusion
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 02:34
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:there would probably be jurisdictional issues This is the best thread
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 02:47
|
|
|
The power to tax is the power to destroy !!!!! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 02:48
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:Speaking of, I want to settle an argument. If I got a laser so powerful that I could project an image of a giant dong onto the moon, can anyone take legal action? A plane would fly through the laser and that's probably when the feds would come for you. Edit; Hieronymous Alloy beat me to it but he said it in the nerd way so I didn't understand CongoJack fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Jun 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 02:51
|
|
|
Honestly you’d be stopped in the “buying the materials” stage You’d never be able to draw the power from the grid either
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 02:52
|
|
|
Probably easier to get a permit from the NRC and generate your own.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 04:30
|
|
|
CongoJack posted:A plane would fly through the laser and that's probably when the feds would come for you. e: envelope math says that you can't get an acceptably small divergence with current mirror/lens quality, even if you put the source in near-earth orbit. Atmosphere turbulence limits you to ~10 mrad. Optics manufacturing limits you to ~1 mrad (and they will also have to be unrealistically large for power levels + diffraction limit). tan(0.001rad) * 240000 miles => 240 mile spot size, which is maybe workable but pen is ~10% of moons diameter tan(0.010rad) * 240000 miles => 2400 mile spot size, which is way too big to draw a dick on a 2160 mi diameter moon Foxfire_ fucked around with this message at 05:10 on Jun 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 04:59
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:The fact that you pay taxes on whatever property you “own” else you lose it is evidence that ownership is an illusion I don't think you pay taxes if you buy some islands or maybe an off-shore rig. The Principality of LaserDong
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 06:52
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:Speaking of, I want to settle an argument. If I got a laser so powerful that I could project an image of a giant dong onto the moon, can anyone take legal action? The size of the moon as viewed with the naked eye is about the same as 60 pixels on your screen. Which means if it was your dong, we would still need binoculars to find it lmaoooo
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 07:12
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:there would probably be jurisdictional issues If jurisdiction lies where the harm is felt, thats just concurrent jurisdiction with Everyone. If its where the act occurs, then its where your laser is. Its the defendant's fault they've subjected themselves to 3.5 billion separate claims in every jurisdiciton in the western hemisphere, thats not a bar to suit
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 14:23
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:The size of the moon as viewed with the naked eye is about the same as 60 pixels on your screen. We’d have to call in an expert dong finder then - is your mom available?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 14:25
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:We’d have to call in an expert dong finder then - is your mom available? Why don't you get off my mom I just got yours... off? Yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 14:28
|
|
|
OPs mom is an astronaut
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 14:38
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:Laser with the focus at the moon is going to necessarily have a large beam width at earth, so that maybe doesn't matter (lasers don't actually go in straight lines). What about if you used a large number of smaller lasers?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 14:43
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:If jurisdiction lies where the harm is felt, thats just concurrent jurisdiction with Everyone. If its where the act occurs, then its where your laser is. Its the defendant's fault they've subjected themselves to 3.5 billion separate claims in every jurisdiciton in the western hemisphere, thats not a bar to suit It's actually not a geographic analysis when we're dealing with space. Jurisdictionally, the Outer Space Treaty vests responsibility for the actions in or affecting the Moon or other celestial bodies by a national of any State in that State, no matter what those actions are or where they're done. The thought being that, since the majority of these actions happen in space, which is legally either something like the high seas or terra nullis (an interesting theoretical debate but of no import here), you just follow the nationality of the actors. So, under the assumptions that you're a US national and that projecting a giant dong on the Moon violates Article IX, OST, the US would be liable under international law for whatever the damages are. Jean-Paul Shartre fucked around with this message at 15:09 on Jun 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 15:07
|
|
|
Does the Moon have standing to bring a law suit in federal court ?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 15:39
|
|
|
Nope, you have to be a legal person to have standing, so it would have to be the Man in the Moon as plaintiff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 15:50
|
|
|
Moon, Inc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 16:08
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:What about if you used a large number of smaller lasers? you will either be able to determine your mom's position or momentum, but not both
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 16:17
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:What about if you used a large number of smaller lasers?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 20:07
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:you will either be able to determine your mom's position or momentum, but not both mom-position or mom-entum
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 20:13
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:The problem is that any individual laser can't be focused to a small enough spot to reasonably draw with. Beam divergence for a laser can't be 0, it is limited in this situation by (in order of severity) atmosphere scattering / mirror quality / quantum effects Ok, so we can't carve CHA into the face of the moon. Can we project it? Just as light image? Presumably on a new moon, not a full moon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 20:21
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Ok, so we can't carve CHA into the face of the moon. Can we project it? Just as light image? Just admit it, you want a giant dong in Uranus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 20:24
|
|
|
You can't draw on Uranus it's a gas planet
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 20:39
|
|
|
https://youtu.be/7PLXYkyRft8
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 20:43
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Ok, so we can't carve CHA into the face of the moon. Can we project it? Just as light image? Maybe if you had a chair for a face you could, for people with a chair for a face the rules (and laws) are different.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 21:08
|
|
|
Nonexistence posted:You can't draw on Uranus it's a gas planet Uranus is full of gas?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 21:51
|
|
|
I read some old science fiction story where they were going to dump carbon black on the moon to make it into a 7-Up logo bottle cap. If I recall, it was thwarted by somebody buying the rights to the moon from all the countries that the moon passes over in its orbit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 22:18
|
|
|
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Sold_the_Moon
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 22:21
|
|
i like nice words
|
Yeah, that's the one. I note that the Tesla logo would fit the moon pretty well. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2021 22:39
|
|
|
Can Cosby be re-tried, if the statement he gave under immunity wasn't admitted in a e. I see headlines saying pennsylvania supreme court barred retrial, so instead I guess I'm trying to understand why, given the agreement he had was prior to additional women making accusations; couldn't he be tried for assaulting those women, leaving aside whoever had made an accusation at the time of his grant of immunity? e2. is it because of statutes of limitation? e3 instead of being a lazy poo poo I'm reading the court opinion and this is the conclusion I've reached, is it basically correct? "[J-100-2020] - 52 For the reasons detailed below, we hold that, when a prosecutor makes an unconditional promise of non-prosecution, and when the defendant relies upon that guarantee to the detriment of his constitutional right not to testify, the principle of fundamental fairness that undergirds due process of law in our criminal justice system demands that the promise be enforced." This is a "you can't trick defendants" principle that I'm in agreement with, and returns the responsibility for this fuckup back to sit squarely on the shoulders of the prosecutor, DA Castor; however, Castor may also have been correct that, absent Cosby's confession that he'd previously given women quaaludes given under oath in the civil trial in which he believed he could not take the 5th and decline to testify, the entire criminal trial probably never would have happened; the previous women's complaints were too long ago (that's a law problem I disagree with but there it is) and Constand had already settled a civil suit in which she agreed not to testify in any subsequent criminal trial. So the state would have had no admissible evidence on which to hang a trial. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Jul 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 00:40
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Can Cosby be re-tried, if the statement he gave under immunity wasn't admitted in a No. The ruling was that because he didn't plead the fifth in his civil trial in reliance on being immune from being ever charged again, he can't be charged again. I don't agree with the ruling, but it has nothing to do with the new prosecutor using his testimony from the lawsuit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 02:01
|
|
|
Imagine a guy ordered a home appliance from a box store and everything appeared fine with the packaging and exterior, but later finds out during the install that it was damaged internally due to shipping. That guy contacts the box store and they say that it is out of their 90 day return period, but still within the 1 year manufacturer warranty period and tell the guy to contact the manufacturer. The manufacturer says it is a shipping problem and responsibility of the box store. If that guy wanted to take this to small claims court, how would jurisdiction be determined? Are there any other routes the guy might explore before taking it to court?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 04:15
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:Imagine a guy ordered a home appliance from a box store and everything appeared fine with the packaging and exterior, but later finds out during the install that it was damaged internally due to shipping. That guy contacts the box store and they say that it is out of their 90 day return period, but still within the 1 year manufacturer warranty period and tell the guy to contact the manufacturer. The manufacturer says it is a shipping problem and responsibility of the box store. If that guy wanted to take this to small claims court, how would jurisdiction be determined? Are there any other routes the guy might explore before taking it to court? Your jurisdiction is heavily dependent on what state you are in, but chances are you can sue wear a significant amount of the events that led to the cause of action occurred, which likely includes your county/house where it was purchased, delivered, installed, and found to be defective Depending on what you sue under, there may be statutorily required pre suit demand letters, such as under DTPA statutes
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 04:46
|
|
|
My preferred approach is to get reps from both groups on the phone at the same time and let them hash it out together. The logistics of such a thing vary, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 05:03
|
|
|
The outcome was bad but I always thought going back years that what the Supreme Court said was probably right on a Legal reasoning basis The good thing about the Supreme Court is they could have ignored the case and left him in jail but they did not (I’m pretty sure it was not a mandatory appeal)
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 14:17
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure a judge isn't supposed to say "we can break the rules because this guy is guilty". The person to blame is that first prosecutor who made the agreement that butchered the case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 15:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 05:29 |
|
|
How often is a decision made on "well if we approve this it means others will bring forth similar lawsuits!" because this seems dumb as hell https://twitter.com/MMNonMeansTV/status/1410594016626982912?s=20
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2021 17:42
|
|
