Slashdot Mirror

What Florida is voting for is to move from EST/EDT to AST (no daylight savings). They are not exempting themselves from Standard Time, they are voting to adopt a different standard timezone. They are voting to eliminate daylight savings time. Standard time in most of the world follows political borders not some raw calculated mean position every 60 minutes apart.

I've seen other posts saying the same thing about this (actually they're moving to Atlantic time), but the wording of the legislative act is about daylight saving time.
Go read the actual legislative act, HB1013.
http://www.flsenate.gov/Sessio...

short title; providing legislative intent regarding
  the State of Florida and its political subdivisions
  observing daylight saving time year-round under
  certain conditions; providing an effective date.

    WHEREAS, the State of Florida is known as the "Sunshine
  State," and WHEREAS, as the "Sunshine State," Florida should be kept
  sunny year-round, NOW, THEREFORE,
  Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:

    Section 1. (1) This section may be cited as the "Sunshine
  Protection Act."
    (2) If the United States Congress amends 15 U.S.C. s. 260a
  to authorize states to observe daylight saving time year-round,
  it is the intent of the Legislature that daylight saving time
  shall be the year-round standard time of the entire state and
  all of its political subdivisions.
    Section 2. This act shall take effect July 1, 2018.

Sure: Florida Stat. 501.204
"Unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful."
https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/...

The definitions section of the statute lists what practices "may" be considered violative of the law (and the ones listed are extremely broad), but it does not restrict them to the ones listed.

So you mean first amendment like the J Law pictures that were posted to porn sites?

https://www.flsenate.gov/Sessi...

47 (2) As used in this section, the term:
48 (a) “Image” includes, but is not limited to, any
49 photograph, picture, motion picture, film, video, or
50 representation.

53 (c) “Sexually cyberharass” means to publish a sexually
54 explicit image of a person that contains or conveys the personal
55 identification information of the depicted person to an Internet
56 website without the depicted person’s consent, for no legitimate
57 purpose, with the intent of causing substantial emotional
58 distress to the depicted person.

70 (4)(a) A law enforcement officer may arrest, without a
71 warrant, any person that he or she has probable cause to believe
72 has violated this section.

99 (7) A violation of this section is committed within this
100 state if any conduct that is an element of the offense, or any
101 harm to the depicted person resulting from the offense, occurs
102 within this state.

So, how exactly does this not fall under the criminal statute of Florida? I see nowhere in that law that has an exception in the case of the press publishing a video or photo of someone without their permission because it is "news".

62 (3)(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a person who
63 willfully and maliciously sexually cyberharasses another person
64 commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as
65 provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
66 (b) A person who has one prior conviction for sexual
67 cyberharassment and who commits a second or subsequent sexual
68 cyberharassment commits a felony of the third degree, punishable
69 as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

76 (5) An aggrieved person may initiate a civil action against
77 a person who violates this section to obtain all appropriate
78 relief in order to prevent or remedy a violation of this
79 section, including the following:
80 (a) Injunctive relief.
81 (b) Monetary damages to include $5,000 or actual damages
82 incurred as a result of a violation of this section, whichever
83 is greater.
84 (c) Reasonable attorney fees and costs.

Good luck on that appeal...oh, and I would avoid visiting Florida for a while if I were the reporter or editor, as this was pretty willful.

Jacksonville, FL.

Thank you for the pointer. In researching the franchise for this city, I find this. It appears that Florida has actually decided to remove cable franchising from the local municipalities and taken it on as a state function. One thing I do note is that there is no statement that the franchises issued by the state of Florida are exclusive, and lacking that provision, they are not.

What is interesting in light of the previous cited law, is this municipal code. It clearly states that the franchise shall be non-exclusive. Most of this code appears to have a 2003 origination date, but a part of it was updated in 2011. Clearly, Jacksonville thinks they still issue franchises. In any case, as of 2003 franchises were, indeed, non-exclusive.

As to "cable broadband", there is nothing in the Jacksonville Municipal Code that I can find regarding issuing franchises for that service, but section 710.124 does require any cable franchisee to provide:

(b) High speed "Internet" access service to Duval County public schools.

and includes a provision that should the incumbent franchisee fail to provide adequate service the city can require "an additional Franchisee" to do so. If there can be additional Franchisees providing the same service, then the original franchise is clearly non-exclusive.

If you find the reference to the monopoly that the PUC was asked to remove for cable internet, please pass that along. I know of no franchising authority for ISPs, and clearly with the proliferation of them over the years, any such franchise would have to be non-exclusive, were it to exist. Or were you referring to the monopoly that telcos do have as exclusive franchisees and not to Comcast?

316.081 Driving on right side of roadway; exceptions.—

(2) Upon all roadways, any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

(4) A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable as a moving violation as provided in chapter 318.

Some questions I would have for a lawyer that actually knows the ins&outs of Florida state law in this field: 1. Is the above, in fact, the case? I.e. are the charges on those accounts completely unrelated to the disclosure of what the purchased material (in this case, Bitcoin) would be used for? 2a. Does that mean that the state of Florida sees Bitcoin as a currency? 2b. If it does not, then how would this same law be applied to e.g. physical goods if used as a material for exchange (e.g. gold nuggets, diamonds, etc.) 3. Would similar apply to a travelers going in opposite directions exchanging their currencies when the value exceeds $300 (something easily possible if you forget to empty out your wallet), rather than going through the official exchange bureaus at the airport (and incurring the rather hefty exchange fees)?

I am anything but a lawyer, but TFA actually references the laws applicable to the case for everyone to read. If I read these laws correctly, then

1. Yes, you can not simply do trades between currencies or equivalent valuables without a license, and that license seems tied to stiff reporting rules as soon as higher values are involved

2. The law doesn't require that, it suffices if bitcoin is seen a payment instrument.

3. It would seem like that. Read the law yourself: http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/S...

Common sense, first of all. Does it harm someone or something? Could it easily harm someone or something if misused? Does it interrupt any other government function? Have you ever heard of someone getting in trouble for anything similar?

When the answer to any of those questions is "yes", it warrants further investigation. Go to a library. Ask the librarian for help. They actually do far more than just point out books. Often, they can help you with understanding the law in question (though note that they are not authoritative sources of legal advice... those are lawyers).

Don't just assume that laws are complicated. Here's a few examples of laws chosen nearly at random. They're all pretty simple to read, though a few of them require skipping over large definition sections or clarifying clauses. In fact, consider this a challenge: Find me an American law that can't be understood with high-school reading skills.

Close but no cigar. The law states that "harm" is not enough.

imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

So no, you can not shoot someone because you think he is going to punch you in the nose.

According to the Florida Senate's website, section 849.16 reads:

(1) As used in this chapter, the term "slot machine or device" means any machine or device or system or network of devices that is adapted for use in such a way that, upon activation, which may be achieved by, but is not limited to, the insertion of any piece of money, coin, account number, code, or other object or information, such device or system is directly or indirectly caused to operate or may be operated and if the user, whether by application of skill or by reason of any element of chance or any other outcome unpredictable by the user, may:

(a) Receive or become entitled to receive any piece of money, credit, allowance, or thing of value, or any check, slug, token, or memorandum, whether of value or otherwise, which may be exchanged for any money, credit, allowance, or thing of value or which may be given in trade; or

The human brain and auditory system is a machine or device (both mechanical, through the eardrum, and electronic, because of the signals that pass along neurons) that can be activated (through a user saying "I bet you ...") and the user may receive or become entitled to money if the condition of the bet (which may rely upon an outcome unpredictable by the user) is satisfied. So unless the State of Florida has defined "machine" and "device" to exclude things with an organic component, which I'm guessing they have not done, a human being would satisfy the definition of "slot machine or device" according to a very technical reading and interpretation.

Here is the actual bill as signed as a PDF: http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2013/0155/BillText/er/PDF Florida (and governing bodies in general) can easily pass bills with unintended consequences as pointed about by others' comments, so read the bill yourself to see what actually took place. The actual bill is called "CS/HB 155: Prohibition of Electronic Gambling Devices".

Well, skippy, I do vote and I don't go to university. I am a real adult. I actually work.

When trying to convince others that you are “a real adult[,]” it’s probably a good rule of practice to avoid remarks that make you seem like a petulant child.

What you didn't explain is why my taxes should go to something that will not benefit me or the rest of society. Explain why my and everyone else's tax dollars should go to paying someone's college tuition for an education that will benefit only that third person?

Florida residents are subject to and bound by the laws of the State of Florida. Except where federally preempted, the supreme source of law of in Florida is the Florida Constitution. Article IX, Section 1 of that document provides, in pertinent part:

The education of children is a fundamental value of the people of the State of Florida. It is, therefore, a paramount duty of the state to make adequate provision for the education of all children residing within its borders. Adequate provision shall be made by law . . . for the establishment, maintenance, and operation of institutions of higher learning and other public education programs that the needs of the people may require.

Art. IX, sec. 1(a), Fla. Const., available at Flsenate.gov (emphasis added).

In other words, the simplest answer to your question is “because it’s the law.” If you don’t like it, you are free to (a) relocate to another state or (b) avail yourself of the provisions of Article XI, Section 3, which sets out the method by which citizens such as yourself may propose amendments to the Florida Constitution through ballot initiative. Whining about your taxes here is the coward’s option, and wholly unpersuasive.

Bennett is a Republican. His Republican Party would send us all to jail for watching porn at our own jobs. Indeed, Florida Republicans would have us all locked in stocks and publicly flogged by some priest for it, if they got the theocracy they're working on.

As I understood the OP - the teacher reached into his backpack and *took his notes*. We're not talking about IP, we're talking about taking a physical item.

Not sure where the OP is, but the last time I checked. . . The State of FL calls that the criminal offense of theft.

In the state of Florida.

Warning PDF!

http://www.flsenate.gov/data/Publications/2007/Senate/reports/interim_reports/pdf/2007-109cj.pdf

They do have some tracking in place. Go to http://www.flsenate.gov/ and search for the bill by number on the left.

Here's the text of the bill as it currently stands (April 17th, ~2:40PM EDT): http://www.flsenate.gov/cgi-bin/view_page.pl?Tab=s ession&Submenu=1&FT=D&File=SB1974c1491738.html&Dir ectory=session/2007/Senate/bills/amendments_com/ht ml/ Since there may be a session ID in there somewhere, try visiting this page http://www.flsenate.gov/session/index.cfm?BI_Mode= ViewBillInfo&Mode=Bills&SubMenu=1&Year=2007&billnu m=1974 and scrolling down to the section labeled Proposed Committee Substitutes and click on the latest Web Page version. Then search for the word "open" within that page. :)

It looks to me like this is much ado about nothing at this point...

Here's the text of the bill as it currently stands (April 17th, ~2:40PM EDT): http://www.flsenate.gov/cgi-bin/view_page.pl?Tab=s ession&Submenu=1&FT=D&File=SB1974c1491738.html&Dir ectory=session/2007/Senate/bills/amendments_com/ht ml/ Since there may be a session ID in there somewhere, try visiting this page http://www.flsenate.gov/session/index.cfm?BI_Mode= ViewBillInfo&Mode=Bills&SubMenu=1&Year=2007&billnu m=1974 and scrolling down to the section labeled Proposed Committee Substitutes and click on the latest Web Page version. Then search for the word "open" within that page. :)

It looks to me like this is much ado about nothing at this point...

Our own State Constitution protects the rights of pigs.
http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?Mode=Co nstitution&Submenu=3&Tab=statutes&CFID=24774056&CF TOKEN=19855079#A10S21

I doubt it will take very much longer for robots to reach that level of intelligence.

P.S. I'm not going to tell you if that means pigs or most voters in Florida. Figure that one out for yourself.

(3) CERTAIN USES OF COMPUTER SERVICES PROHIBITED.--Any person who knowingly utilizes a computer on-line service, Internet service, or local bulletin board service to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice, or attempt to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice, a child or another person believed by the person to be a child, to commit any illegal act described in chapter 794, relating to sexual battery; chapter 800, relating to lewdness and indecent exposure; or chapter 827, relating to child abuse, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Additionally, the court ruling states:

This case involves the prosecution of Michael John Simmons for luring or enticing a child by use of an online service in violation of section 847.0135, Florida Statutes (2002),

Here's the link to the Florida Legal Code.

The fact of the matter is that the actual section of the law that he was being prosecuted under relates to the Internet in general. It could have been a series of windows messenger popup alerts and it still would have gone through under this statute because even that could technically count as an "online service."

I seriously doubt that the conviction would have been over-turned if the judge had defined email in a more limited fashion.

I looked up the law in question, and I fully agree with it. But your interpretation of it sucks rocks, and your glee at the prospect of using it indicates a rather vicious character.

I say your interpretation sucks, because nobody has threatened to set foot in your residence (which is the only place where the "defense of property" law actually appears to apply). If your opponent was exercising his definition of "reasonable force" to secure his supposed rights to use your software, it would involve downloading a file or copying a CD. It would not involve stealing any physical item you possess or stepping into your physical residence. If you can't scale back your reaction to take that into account, then your actions are those of a vigilante, and are well outside the protection of this or any law.

As to your moral character, let me say this: Just because the law says you can do something, doesn't necessarily mean that doing it is morally justified. You make it sound as though anyone who enters your home with criminal (or even unknown) intent automatically deserves to die, which is crap.

According to this law, if an unarmed person enters my house, and I train a gun on that person, the law won't punish me for whatever happens next. It doesn't matter whether I tell that person to leave, shoot that person three times in the chest, or tell the person to leave and then shoot him three times in the back before he gets out my door. The person was in my residence, so the law says that whatever happens, it will assume that I was in fear of my life and let me go free. But warning the intruder away is an act of courage and restraint, shooting the man is somewhat cowardly, and shooting him as he leaves is an act of psychopathic malevolence.

I will grant that even as the intruder stands unarmed before you, he still poses some risk to you. But that risk is tiny, and worth accepting to preserve the intruder's life. To hold your life as more valuable than that of another is just human nature; but to place zero value on another person's life is wrong.

If you actually read the bill...

here

at first, it doesn't seem that bad. "Violent" is described (para 2) as specifically heinous, depraved, or cruel. In other words, police shooters and military combat games aren't affected. And the bill specifically states (para 5) that parents are allowed to buy or rent violent games for their kids. In other words, if a parent thinks its OK a kid can still play a targeted game.

So in reality, is this bill that bad? Yes, I know its "parenting by legislation" but from a certain point of view this is no different than not allowing underage kids to buy alcohol. The question, of course, is whether alcohol is better/worse than playing a violent game.

My personal concern is that if the bill is passed it becomes some sort of "slippery slope" for other legislation. The bill states that playing violent games mentally affects and even damages kids but no scientific evidence is cited. So a bill could be written that says playing soccer is bad without any scientific evidence and it could become illegal.

Is this scenareo against the law?

In Florida, Yes. Yes it is.
http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mod e=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0815/SEC06. HTM&Title=-%3E2004-%3ECh0815-%3ESection%2006#0815. 06
Specifically, (1)(a):

(1) Whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization:

(a) Accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, or computer network;

Chapter 815.03 defines "Access", "Computer", "Computer network", and "Computer system" as:

(1) "Access" means to approach, instruct, communicate with, store data in, retrieve data from, or otherwise make use of any resources of a computer, computer system, or computer network.

(2) "Computer" means an internally programmed, automatic device that performs data processing.

(4) "Computer network" means any system that provides communications between one or more computer systems and its input or output devices, including, but not limited to, display terminals and printers that are connected by telecommunication facilities.

(7) "Computer system" means a device or collection of devices, including support devices, one or more of which contain computer programs, electronic instructions, or input data and output data, and which perform functions, including, but not limited to, logic, arithmetic, data storage, retrieval, communication, or control. The term does not include calculators that are not programmable and that are not capable of being used in conjunction with external files.

Note the broad definitions that effectively outlaw the internet.
I can not remember the last time I visited a web site that I had previous written or verbal permission to access.

Well, Heres to hoping I dont get arrested for illegally accessing slashdot!

-Una

Because the geek could have driven over to the Starbucks and done the same thing without penalty had the geek realized the Wi-Fi's owner was an asshat who would call the cops after he willfully left his wi-fi open to the public. If the guy willfully and knowingly leaves his hotspot open to the public, I fail to see how this would qualify as unauthorized access. At least the poor geek wasn't in California, or they'd have his DNA by now.

But I'm not the judge, so it doesn't matter what I or any other slashbot thinks. Under Florida law, the legislators went to great lengths to define all those high tech terms but failed to define what constitutes 'authorized' access. So now it's up to the judge. For background on what judges have found constitutes unauthorized access, have a look here.

In case you really wanted to know, it seems that the bill passed unanimously through both houses of the Florida legislature, so this really did have the support of those pesky liberals.

Source: http://www.flsenate.gov/session/index.cfm?Mode=Bil ls&Submenu=1&BI_Mode=ViewBillInfo&Billnum=1877&Yea r=2005

1) A supervisor of elections shall be elected in each county at the general election in each year the number of which is a multiple of four for a 4-year term commencing on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in January succeeding his or her election....
(3) The supervisor is the official custodian of the registration books and has the exclusive control of matters pertaining to registration of electors.

Most importantly, your claim that the felon list was in any way just a suggestion is flat out 100% untrue. You can see the law for yourself at http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mod e=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0097/ch0097.htm which clearly states that the chief election officer is ordered to (11) Create and maintain a statewide voter registration database.

You are reading the wrong law. The administration of the statewide voter database is detailed in Chapter 98 of Florida Election laws, specifically 98.0977:

(d) When the supervisor of elections finds information through the database that suggests that a voter has been convicted of a felony and has not had his or her civil rights restored or has been adjudicated mentally incompetent and his or her mental capacity with respect to voting has not been restored, the supervisor of elections shall notify the voter by certified United States mail. The notification shall contain a statement as to the reason for the voter's potential ineligibility to be registered to vote and shall request information from the voter on forms provided by the supervisor of elections. As an alternative, the voter may attend a hearing at a time and place specified in the notice. If there is evidence that the notice was not received, notice must be given once by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the county. The notice must plainly state that the voter is potentially ineligible to be registered to vote and must state a time and place for the person to appear before the supervisor of elections to show cause why his or her name should not be removed from the voter registration rolls. After reviewing the information provided by the voter, if the supervisor of elections determines that the voter is not eligible to vote under the laws of this state, the supervisor of elections shall notify the voter by certified United States mail that he or she has been found ineligible to be registered to vote in this state, shall state the reason for the ineligibility, and shall inform the voter that he or she has been removed from the voter registration rolls. The supervisor of elections shall remove from the voter registration rolls the name of any voter who fails either to respond within 30 days to the notice sent by certified mail or to attend the hearing. (e) Upon hearing all evidence in a hearing, the supervisor of elections must determine whether there is sufficient evidence to strike the person's name from the registration books. If the supervisor determines that there is sufficient evidence, he or she must strike the name.

You will notice that the entire responsibility of verifying the names on the statewide list, notifying potential ineligible voters, and striking ineligible voters from the registration rolls is soley in the hands of the County Election supervisors. The State Department of Elections has no discretion in the matter beyond providing list of potential ineligible voters. The State doesn't even have any say in the appeals process -- it is handled by the county circuit court in a de novo trial goverened by the rules of that county.

Ask people about the CD they just bought. Stand outside a record store.

Ask them if they think they own that CD they just bought, or whether its just a license to use it. Go ahead.

As to "battery", it depends; if I punch you in the nose and knock you down, I'll be arrested, the judge will issue a stern warning and I'll be sent on my way. If there's a fine, it will be well under $500. It will not be a felony.

But you put a couple of CD's up on Kazaa, and you are threated with literally millions of dollars and basically economic ruin.

Where is the justice here?

Ask people about the CD they just bought. Stand outside a record store.

Ask them if they think they own that CD they just bought, or whether its just a license to use it. Go ahead.

As to "battery", it depends; if I punch you in the nose and knock you down, I'll be arrested, the judge will issue a stern warning and I'll be sent on my way. If there's a fine, it will be well under $500. It will not be a felony.

But you put a couple of CD's up on Kazaa, and you are threated with literally millions of dollars and basically economic ruin.

Where is the justice here?

Ask people about the CD they just bought. Stand outside a record store.

Ask them if they think they own that CD they just bought, or whether its just a license to use it. Go ahead.

As to "battery", it depends; if I punch you in the nose and knock you down, I'll be arrested, the judge will issue a stern warning and I'll be sent on my way. If there's a fine, it will be well under $500. It will not be a felony.

But you put a couple of CD's up on Kazaa, and you are threated with literally millions of dollars and basically economic ruin.

Where is the justice here?

Florida has had nearly the same machines spitting out the same paper lottery ticket, keeping the same journal, uploading each set of digits scanned from the same "blacken in the circle" forms for nearly * 15 FUCKING YEARS *

Change the firmware, repurpose some hardware, and give us a goddamned voting system with some EQUALLY STRINGENT ACCOUNTING

This is important: -------------------

Q. Who audits the Lottery?

A. Florida law requires a variety of strict audits and controls, and the Florida Lottery enjoys the distinction of being the most audited agency in Florida state government. The Lottery, unlike any other state agency, must submit detailed monthly financial statements to the Governor, Treasurer and the Legislature disclosing all Lottery revenues and expenses. In addition to the Lottery Inspector General's internal auditing procedures:

* The Legislative Auditing Committee contracts with an independent accounting firm to conduct an annual financial audit.
* The State Auditor General may at any time audit any phase of Lottery operations.
* A comprehensive security audit must be conducted at least every two years.
* An independent certified public accounting firm witnesses each Lottery drawing to certify the official winning numbers for the drawing.

Speed limit is not set by the state

Thank you for admitting your ignorance, let me help you

Here This is in general for state highways, and This is for residential zones. This is one place where the state sets the speed not the locality. I don't know where you got your ticket and I really don't care. You said the state does not and you are wrong.

Have a nice day, I'm done teaching for today.

202.15 Special rule for users of substitute communications systems.--Any person who purchases, installs, rents, or leases a substitute communications system must register with the department and pay the taxes imposed or administered pursuant to s. 202.12 annually pursuant to rules prescribed by the department.

202.11 Definitions.--As used in this chapter:
...
(16) "Substitute communications system" means any telephone system, or other system capable of providing communications services, which a person purchases, installs, rents, or leases for his or her own use to provide himself or herself with services used as a substitute for any switched service or dedicated facility by which a dealer of communications services provides a communication path.

Section 12 says that the tax rate is 6.8% of the sales price, applied yearly.

202.15 Special rule for users of substitute communications systems.--Any person who purchases, installs, rents, or leases a substitute communications system must register with the department and pay the taxes imposed or administered pursuant to s. 202.12 annually pursuant to rules prescribed by the department.

202.11 Definitions.--As used in this chapter:
...
(16) "Substitute communications system" means any telephone system, or other system capable of providing communications services, which a person purchases, installs, rents, or leases for his or her own use to provide himself or herself with services used as a substitute for any switched service or dedicated facility by which a dealer of communications services provides a communication path.

Section 12 says that the tax rate is 6.8% of the sales price, applied yearly.

202.15 Special rule for users of substitute communications systems.--Any person who purchases, installs, rents, or leases a substitute communications system must register with the department and pay the taxes imposed or administered pursuant to s. 202.12 annually pursuant to rules prescribed by the department.

202.11 Definitions.--As used in this chapter:
...
(16) "Substitute communications system" means any telephone system, or other system capable of providing communications services, which a person purchases, installs, rents, or leases for his or her own use to provide himself or herself with services used as a substitute for any switched service or dedicated facility by which a dealer of communications services provides a communication path.

Section 12 says that the tax rate is 6.8% of the sales price, applied yearly.

Because pawn brokers, which EB would likely claim they are

539.001 2 (h)"Pawn" means any advancement of funds on the security of pledged goods on condition that the pledged goods are left in the possession of the pawnbroker for the duration of the pawn and may be redeemed by the pledgor on the terms and conditions contained in this section.
539.001 2 (i)"Pawnbroker" means any person who is engaged in the business of making pawns; who makes a public display containing the term "pawn," "pawnbroker," or "pawnshop" or any derivative thereof; or who publicly displays a sign or symbol historically identified with pawns. A pawnbroker may also engage in the business of purchasing goods which includes consignment and trade.

539.001 3 (a)A person may not engage in business as a pawnbroker unless the person has a valid license issued by the agency. A separate license is required for each pawnshop.

Because pawn brokers, which EB would likely claim they are

539.001 2 (h)"Pawn" means any advancement of funds on the security of pledged goods on condition that the pledged goods are left in the possession of the pawnbroker for the duration of the pawn and may be redeemed by the pledgor on the terms and conditions contained in this section.
539.001 2 (i)"Pawnbroker" means any person who is engaged in the business of making pawns; who makes a public display containing the term "pawn," "pawnbroker," or "pawnshop" or any derivative thereof; or who publicly displays a sign or symbol historically identified with pawns. A pawnbroker may also engage in the business of purchasing goods which includes consignment and trade.

539.001 3 (a)A person may not engage in business as a pawnbroker unless the person has a valid license issued by the agency. A separate license is required for each pawnshop.

(2)When the lawful owner recovers stolen property from a secondhand dealer and the person who sold or pledged the stolen property to the secondhand dealer is convicted of theft, a violation of this section, or dealing in stolen property, the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the secondhand dealer pursuant to s. 775.089.

Just as I could give out fliers while wearing a mask without breaking the law...

Just in time for the FTAA protests later that year...Thanks, (ahem)Reps

-dave-

I realize this is a troll, but just to provide the evidence that the poster is wrong, here is the relevant Florida election law. Yes I realize it says 2003 but most of these provisions have not changed since 2000. Florida law did have a manual re-count provision for close elections.

Flordia's constitution required a full recount and cert by x date,

I see nothing in the Florida constituion regarding this, though my look was brief. Citation, please?

the SCOTUS ordered flordia to obey its constitution.

State laws are a matter for state courts. The right of every voter to be counted trumps arbitrary deadlines anyway.

could Gore have won?

If by "won" you mean "received more votes in Florida", the answer is clearly yes. He did. A full statewide recount would have favored Gore. (Gore blew it by not demanding a full recount.)

That's not even considering the many voters - mostly black, and more likely to be Gore voters - illegal disenfranchised, or the illegal and self-contradictory Palm Beach "butterfly ballot", or the invalid absentee ballots that were counted. (I assume the later are the ones you're refering to. However, Gore didn't challenge such absentee ballots - if he had, the Bush team might have had a harder time committing their fraud. Another blown opportunity.)

More voters - in the U.S. as a whole and in Florida - went to the polls to cast their ballots for Gore than for Bush. The fact that in Florida, more Gore voters had trouble getting their votes counted shows the absence of equal protection when different methods of vote-counting are used in different areas. (With rich counties generally having more accurate tabulation.)

How would this be different from checking which voters voted for which candidate? Wouldn't this would violate the rights of Florida voters to a "direct and secret vote"?

You've made a number of statements about this law that are just plain wrong. Even your URL takes most people to the 2003 version of the chapter.

This is the law under discussion. I use the 2000 version because that was the year of the election. Florida Statute 98.0975 (Year 2000) which reads as follows:

98.0975 Central voter file; periodic list maintenance.--

(1) By August 15, 1998, the division shall provide to each county
supervisor of elections a list containing the name, address, date of
birth, race, gender, and any other available information identifying
the voter of each person included in the central voter file as a
registered voter in the supervisor's county who:

(a) Is deceased;

(b) Has been convicted of a felony and has not had his or her civil
rights restored; or

(c) Has been adjudicated mentally incompetent and whose mental
capacity with respect to voting has not been restored.

(2) The division shall annually update the information required in
subsection (1) and forward a like list to each supervisor by June 1 of
each year.

(3)(a) In order to meet its obligations under this section, the
division shall annually contract with a private entity to compare
information in the central voter file with available information in
other computer databases, including, without limitation, databases
containing reliable criminal records and records of deceased persons.

(b) The entity contracted by the division is designated as an agent
of the division for purposes of administering the contract, and must
be limited to seeking only that information which is necessary for the
division to meet its obligations under this section. Information
obtained under this section may not be used for any purpose other than
determining voter eligibility.

(4) Upon receiving the list from the division, the supervisor must
attempt to verify the information provided. If the supervisor does not
determine that the information provided by the division is incorrect,
the supervisor must remove from the registration books by the next
subsequent election the name of any person who is deceased, convicted
of a felony, or adjudicated mentally incapacitated with respect to
voting.

You'll note that your repeated claim, that the law requests a list of "probable felons" is wrong. Florida 98.0975(1)(b) specifies that the list should of people who "Has been convicted of a felony and has not had his or her civil rights restored". Not 'possibly', not 'probably' but HAS.

You'll also note that Florida 98.0975(4) does not say the county supervisor of elections must verify this list, only that they must 'attempt' to do so. A phone call unanswered, or a postcard that gets lost, and the law is satified.

You also do not seem well informed on legal challenges to the purge list. The NAACP has sued a list of people over it. This includes the company that made the list, and several counties that have settled out of court.

As the settlement includes provision that voters who were purged by error will be restored, you should take that as an indication that voters were removed in error.

A cursory search of Google turned up the relevent statute. Obviously you couldn't be bothered to look and would rather disparage my understanding than use facts yourself.

http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mod e=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0102/SEC141 .HTM&Title=-%3E2000-%3ECh0102-%3ESection%20141

(6) If the unofficial returns reflect that a candidate for any office was defeated or eliminated by one-half of a percent or less of the votes cast for such office, that a candidate for retention to a judicial office was retained or not retained by one-half of a percent or less of the votes cast on the question of retention, or that a measure appearing on the ballot was approved or rejected by one-half of a percent or less of the votes cast on such measure, the board responsible for certifying the results of the vote on such race or measure shall order a recount of the votes cast with respect to such office or measure. A recount need not be ordered with respect to the returns for any office, however, if the candidate or candidates defeated or eliminated from contention for such office by one-half of a percent or less of the votes cast for such office request in writing that a recount not be made.

Please provide evidence that every county in Florida carried out a recount. Provide before numbers and after numbers.

Here's a hint: if the two match, they didn't recount.

I'd call you clueless, but you know exactly what went on and are just trying to distort the truth that your boy and his brother cheated.

The claim made at the time was that the (Florida Republican) folks in charge of voter lists took advantage of a law that lets them kick convicted felons off the list, knocking out anyone from the "wrong" neighborhoods whose name was more or less similar to a convict.

Nope. Nobody was "kicked off the list" because of the felon list. In fact, when the USCCR held hearings on the 2000 Florida elections, they couldnt find a single eligible voter that was kept from voting because they were incorrectly identified as a felon (and believe me- the Democrat majority in the commission looked VERY hard).

And the Florida Republicans were not taking advantage of some loophole in the law- the state was required by a 1998 statute to compile a list of possible felons. According to the law, this list was then given to the individual county elections supervisors who were required to verify that a person actually was a convicted felon before removing them from the voter registration.

The cool part is it's pretty hard to find out you've been de-enrolled 2 weeks before the election, let alone get this error corrected.

According the the statute, anybody that was removed from the voter registration was given at least 30 days written notice, and they were given a process to appeal (in most cases, they only had to go to a police station and submit a fingerprint).

Interesting- that link to the Florida Senate was working 20 minutes ago, but now it looks like it is broken.

Just in case, here is a link to the whole chapter.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mod e=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0098/ch0098.htm

98.0977 contains the relevant portion.

Wrong. The lists were not checked. That is what the private company that was contracted to do the checking, DPT, was paid $4 million dollars for.

I'm sorry, but take the 2 seconds to read the 1998 Florida Statute that called for the creation of this list. It clearly states that the names on the list must be verified by the individual county elections supervisors before action is taken. Many of the county elections supervisors are democrats- are they a part of this big conspiracy to help Bush win?

They were *paid* not to check the rosters by telephone. There is a data trail, a letter from Jeb Bush to K. Harris, to prove this

Of course- it wasn't their job to verify the names. They were contracted to find as many *possible* matches as they could. It was up to the county supervisors to verify the names.

mistakes, when checked, added up to 95% error rate. It was voter fraud

To date, not a single innocent person has been found that was actually kept from voting because of the list. There is no fraud.

The man who gave out the contract was named Clayton Roberts and he was assistant to K. Harris. He was not a Dem. Harris was the state chair of the Bush campaign in FL.

I'm sorry, but that is just incorrect. DBT was contracted to make the list before Harris was even elected.

The contract was not put out to bid and the owners of the company in question, DBT, were all Republicans.

Thats actually a pretty dubious claim. Greg Palast claims that the company is "packed with republican stars", and he gives 2 names to "prove" this:
- Ken Langone, who worked on Giuliani's senate campaign, but Palast fails to mention that Langone also donated money to Bill Clinton's 1996 campaign as well as several democratic senators
- Rick Rozar, who has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Republican party. But Palast doesn't mention that Rozar wasn't even affiliated with DBT when they were awarded the contract. He joined DBT when his company was taken over by them a full year after the contract was awarded.

Thats not really strong evidence that the company is "all Republicans" like you claim.

The NAACP got an undisclosed settlement for voter's rights violations.

Funny you should mention that- the NAACP also stated VERY clearly in their settlement that they "have not alleged that Defendants acted in a purposefully discriminatory manner toward any group."

If they didn't find anyone it must've been for the same reason the Warren Commission didn't find anyone who heard shots coming from in front of the JFK motorcade.
Getting a commission to whitewash something is no big deal. Par for the course

Holy cow- read the report. It was (along party lines) extremely critical of the Florida elections process. They would have loved to find something like that. Just look at the dissenting statement to see how partisan the report was.

In order for this to be the big scandal that you seem to think it is, the following would have to be true:
- The legislature that passed the bi-partisan law in 1998 was a part of the conspiracy
- The Democrat that hired DBT was part of the conspiracy
- Every county elections supervisor that was a Democrat was also in on the plot to elect Bush
- There would actually have been people incorrectly prevented from voting because of the list

Since I don't see any of these as being true, I dismiss this crap as sour grapes by the losers.

Speaking of which, Florida's Ultra-DMCA was signed into law on June 24. It's funny and sad, because Florida's government always claims they're trying to attract technology companies. I'm expecting between this sort of thing and the heavy presence of Disney, it's not going to happen.

Text of Bill

History of Bill

AC because this is completely off-topic.

Speaking of which, Florida's Ultra-DMCA was signed into law on June 24. It's funny and sad, because Florida's government always claims they're trying to attract technology companies. I'm expecting between this sort of thing and the heavy presence of Disney, it's not going to happen.

Text of Bill

History of Bill

AC because this is completely off-topic.

Except for how it makes tools for decryption illegal, unless you have express permission of the service provider. It's also unlawful to sell such tools.

So look out, Best Buy. Windows XP is now illegal,, and you're selling it. This is not FUD, excepting a misreading as IANAL, but here's the relevant portion from the law. I'm not sure if I've cited it correctly, because the formatting here is atrocious. It's also apparently a third-degree felony. So is aggravated battery. Max sentence of five years.

Here's the bit to start reading at: "A person may not knowingly intercept, receive, decrypt, disrupt, transmit, retransmit, or acquire access to any communications service offered by a cable operator or any other communications service provider, or knowingly assist others in those acts, unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or other communiactions provider, or as otherwise specifically authorized by law. For the purpose of this section, the term 'assist others' in committing any of these acts includes:"