Slashdot Mirror

It is perfectly reasonable to consider Tesla itself to be the one and only dealer.

In my state they do fit the legal definition of a dealership.

(GG) "Operating as a new motor vehicle dealership" means engaging in activities such as displaying, offering for sale, and selling new motor vehicles at retail, operating a service facility to perform repairs and maintenance on motor vehicles, offering for sale and selling motor vehicle parts at retail, and conducting all other acts that are usual and customary to the operation of a new motor vehicle dealership. For the purposes of this chapter only, possession of either a valid new motor vehicle dealer franchise agreement or a new motor vehicle dealers license, or both of these items, is not evidence that a person is operating as a new motor vehicle dealership.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4517

But that last sentence threw me off a bit. So I looked it up at the federal level and am now even more confused.

https://www.dmv.org/buy-sell/car-dealers/

It still seems state specific on the exact rules, but seems to imply a company only becomes a legal car dealership once they obtain a dealership license, and only then does any of the dealership regulations apply.

Tesla seems to not have a dealership license in quite a few states, and that seems the entire reason they are banned from selling their cars there.
Since right to repair laws are also per state, it would seem these two would go hand in hand.

For states tesla has a dealership license in, and where the state also has right to repair laws, I'd think those laws should cover the one and only tesla dealership.

For states tesla has no dealership license in, I'd think any right to repair laws would actually not apply to them at all.

In my state we do have right to repair laws, but tesla does not have a dealership license.
So I don't think those laws would cover them here.

Don't worry, these guys say it's perfectly safe.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511...
(A) No person shall drive a motor vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar on any street, highway, or property open to the public for vehicular traffic while using a handheld electronic wireless communications device to write, send, or read a text-based communication.
(B) Division (A) of this section does not apply to any of the following:
[...]
(2) A person driving a public safety vehicle who uses a handheld electronic wireless communications device in that manner in the course of the person's duties;

Um...yes! I do get a choice for electricity and gas provider at least.

The old monopoly (AEP/Columbia Gas) is in charge of maintaining the physical infrastructure, but I can buy the actual electrons/gas from anyone who wants to provide them. Sounds like exactly what we need in terms of infrastructure. The old monopoly handles the wiring, but anyone can provide services over the wires.

And if the "old monopoly" only delivered third-party electricity at 80 VAC, what would be your proposed solution? Better question - What would be the response of all the other vendors? Come on, at least try to make an apples to apples comparison.

Um...yes! I do get a choice for electricity and gas provider at least.

The old monopoly (AEP/Columbia Gas) is in charge of maintaining the physical infrastructure, but I can buy the actual electrons/gas from anyone who wants to provide them. Sounds like exactly what we need in terms of infrastructure. The old monopoly handles the wiring, but anyone can provide services over the wires.

They can probably get around the criminal part by just creating a fictional person. It's only criminal if they steal a real persons identity. I doubt the cops care anything about civil law.

Maybe. But the computer misuse laws are so broadly written right now, that violating the "terms of service" is tantamount to "unauthorized use of a computer"...

For example...

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2913...

Some ideas; Do check this link http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/0... Contribute to open source projects when you don't have work https://guides.github.com/acti... Freelance through the elance or other coder for hire type sites https://www.elance.com/ Start your own IT support company/freelance/contract/game development, whatever your strongest skills are https://www.sba.gov/ Get your company registered as a state/federal contractor and bid http://www.procure.ohio.gov/pr... http://www.gsa.gov/portal/cate...

Shit, Amazon is building a datacenter in Ohio, does that mean I'll have to pay sales tax?

It means that Amazon will be compelled to collect sales tax on Ohio's behalf. It doesn't change the tax you owe, since you already owe use tax on most interstate purchases for which the seller isn't collecting sales tax.

None of the inland marinas around my parts of the country are exempt. However, the commercial marinas servicing large vessels on the Ohio river and Lake Erie might be. I simply do not know. None of the fuel I have ever purchased at a marina has been dyed which is required for the tax exempt fuels.

The law in Ohio seems to not allow it though.
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/5735...

It appears that in Ohio, the fuel tax derived from marina purchases has it's own uses. Of course other states may be different. I'm not sure what the federal rules are though. Fuel is taxed by both the state and federal governments. But with the tax going to separate uses, it may end up being a problem when used on the roads. But then again, many people buy fuel at regular gas stations on the way to the lakes and recreation areas. Their storage is often away from the water so it might not be as much a problem as storage directly at or on the water is.

Having been born, raised, and currently living in Ohio, I wanted to double check your "prisons in Ohio are privatized", as I had never heard of all of Ohio's prisons being privatized.
According to wikipedia, only two are privatized: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
This particular prison mentioned in the article is not privatized: http://www.drc.ohio.gov/public...
Here is an example of a page according to the ohio gov site that shows one that is privatized (it says privately operated near the address): http://www.drc.ohio.gov/public...

Having been born, raised, and currently living in Ohio, I wanted to double check your "prisons in Ohio are privatized", as I had never heard of all of Ohio's prisons being privatized.
According to wikipedia, only two are privatized: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
This particular prison mentioned in the article is not privatized: http://www.drc.ohio.gov/public...
Here is an example of a page according to the ohio gov site that shows one that is privatized (it says privately operated near the address): http://www.drc.ohio.gov/public...

People talk about shooting burglars, but most places, they have more rights than the homeowner, and a shot burglar usually means the homeowner is going to prison for a long time, not the intruder.

[Citation Needed].

Here in Ohio, if you come in my house against my will, the law authorized me to shoot to kill. The police and the family of the intruder are forbidden from suing me unless the incident meets certain criteria that are very difficult to meet (essentially, I welcome someone in then shoot).

ORC 2901.09 No duty to retreat.

ORC 2901.05 Burden of proof for self-defense.

People talk about shooting burglars, but most places, they have more rights than the homeowner, and a shot burglar usually means the homeowner is going to prison for a long time, not the intruder.

[Citation Needed].

Here in Ohio, if you come in my house against my will, the law authorized me to shoot to kill. The police and the family of the intruder are forbidden from suing me unless the incident meets certain criteria that are very difficult to meet (essentially, I welcome someone in then shoot).

ORC 2901.09 No duty to retreat.

ORC 2901.05 Burden of proof for self-defense.

The problem is not putting morality into machines. The problem is letting these machines execute this "morality" in a complex environment with life-or-death stakes.

I program protective systems in factories. A guy opens a monitored gate and walks into a conveyor area. If the conveyor runs while he's in there, he will have a messy and painful death. The conveyor "knows" it's "wrong" to move under those conditions.
We don't use the word "morality", we say "safety". When auditing the software that lets the conveyor run I find a potential for exposure. Hang a lock and shut it down until it's fixed. The first law. In all except one case over 20 years I have received full support from production for similar decisions. That's precedence of the first law over the second law.

We know what's "right", and we try to teach that to the machines. Industrial safety operates with a very limited set of variables, and exception handling is simple--just STOP. Immediately stop moving and disconnect all power.

This idea that we can "program" morality and justice is not problematic. Of course we can; we write code for those things all the time. Heck, it's even called "code". Here's some. Here's some more. The execution engine for this code is a group of complex elements (people) from which emerges an even more complex "society". This "morality" execution engine constantly goes hideously and indefensibly wrong.

Now we want to create far simpler code and execute it with a far simpler machine. But with the same stakes and in the same environment. And the source of this simplified code and execution engine is the existing society, particularly the part of it most directly involved in many of the atrocities.

It's wise they're starting with autonomous "good" machine--search and rescue, first responder, etc. Maybe they'll learn something before humanity starts building autonomous "bad" robots. Thankfully, those exist only far into the future...

Well perhaps you could show me ONE "local, legal definition" that says you can't ONLY follow someone on public property.

Well, I'm not going to honor your new goalpost location of "ONLY... on public property," since that was never a criteria, but here's an excerpt from Ohio's anti-stalking law:

A person commits the crime of "menacing by stalking" by engaging in a pattern of conduct that the stalker knows will cause another person mental distress or cause that person to believe that the stalker will cause physical harm to her or him. R.C. 2903.211

Further down the page, "menacing by stalking" is given a few definitions:

What types of behavior are examples of “menacing by stalking"?

Ohio’s menacing by stalking statute does not define what types of conduct may constitute "menacing by stalking."

In effect, any actions that the stalker takes to frighten or cause mental distress to his victim—as long as there are two or more actions or incidents reasonably close together in time—will fall within the legal definition of menacing by stalking. Examples of stalking-type conduct include:

        Following the victim.
        Repeatedly driving by her home.
        Making harassing phone calls; sending threatening or harassing letters.
        Hurting the victim’s pets.
        Vandalizing the victim’s property.
        Trespassing or burglarizing the victim’s home or business.
        Leaving threatening notes or objects for the victim.
        Orally threatening the victim.

There are no doubt many other types of conduct that could be used by a stalker to frighten or cause mental distress to his victim.

Note the emphasized statements; also note that they do not specify whether the stalking behavior occurs on public or private property. Basically, if I catch you following me twice "within a reasonable amount of time," and I feel like the action of you following me is threatening, I can have you arrested for stalking.

As another poster pointed out, private investigators would be filling up our jails under these supposed statutes.

In some cases, they are. But most states require private investigators to be licensed, putting them in a different class than regular, non-licensed persons. It's basically the difference between practicing medicine with or without a license - one is legal, the other is a serious infraction with consequences to match.

Maybe, and it's sort of hard to google this issue because the search terms don't come naturally to my mind, but at least in Ohio, if you can't afford to adopt the state will help you out with a loan up to $3000. Honestly, if a person can't come up with $3000 for an adoption, he or she can't be in an awesome financial situation, and yet the state is going out of its way to cause that adoption to occur. It seems reasonable to think that adoptive parents in such situations are at a high risk for ending up on public assistance.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3107...

A prospective adoptive parent may apply to the department of job and family services for a loan from the state adoption assistance loan fund created under section 5101.143 of the Revised Code. Subject to available funds, the department may approve a state adoption assistance loan application, in whole or in part, or deny the application. In reviewing a loan application submitted to the department, the department shall consider the financial need of the prospective adoptive parent in determining whether to approve a loan application, in whole or in part, or deny the application. If the department approves a loan application, in whole or in part, and the child being adopted resides in Ohio, the department shall loan a prospective adoptive parent not more than three thousand dollars from the state adoption assistance loan fund. If the department approves a loan application, in whole or in part, and the child being adopted does not reside in Ohio, the department shall loan a prospective adoptive parent not more than two thousand dollars from the state adoption assistance loan fund.

Uniform Commercial Code, while not law itself, which has been incorporated into the laws of most US states, disagrees with you. That link is for Ohio, just one of many states which have incorporated UCC into its laws; see also: Maine, South Carolina, Nebraska, and Google, if you care for a more complete list (HINT: Louisiana is the only state that has not adopted UCC article 2, which applies here).

Sorry about your bad experience in MA.

It is however probable cause in Ohio.

http://www.opd.ohio.gov/RC_Casebook/search_and_seizure_II.htm

State v. Moore (2000), 90 Ohio St. 3d 47 -- Syllabus: "The smell of marijuana, alone, by a person qualified to recognize the odor, is sufficient to establish probable cause to conduct a search." Warrantless search of car valid under the automobile exception. Majority finds warrantless search of the defendant's person was justified by exigent circumstances.

In true Slashtard fashion, you've conflated "maximum sentence" with "actual sentence."

Let me break this down for you in clear terms:

"Faces a maximum sentence of.." =/= "Received a sentence of..."

The Steubenville rapists "Faced a maximum of" life in prison for rape. Go read the relevant laws, we'll wait. What they received was far less than the maximum penalty. What they received was the minimum penalty.

To pick another high profile case that the Slashtards have whined about here - Aaron Swartz "faced a maximum of" 30 years in prison. The prosecution made it clear that they would seek approximately 6 years at trial, and they offered a plea bargain that would have seen him face "6 months" in prison.

Learn to distinguish between "possible penalty under the law" and "actual sentence imposed by a court." Slashdot loves to cherry-pick to sensationalize headlines. Instead of reporting the actual minimum and maximum penalties that could be imposed, instead of reporting the actual sentence being sought by prosecution, it's easier to drum up the outrage of idiots by simply saying "A COMPUTER GUY IS GONNA FACE 3 BILLION YEARS IN PRISON!"

For a site supposedly populated by nerds, you lot sure do have a hard problem with understanding these clear differences.

Ohio has seen a number of tornadoes and seems' to average a pretty decent amount each year Ohio Tornadoe and even Michigan seems to average around 15+ tornadoes each year Michigan Now granted, they're typically not seen as clustered, or as strong as what you get in the plains/south but they still happen.

...the definition of extortion? For example:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-59

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2905.11

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=518-527

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/875

No, unfortunately. For simplicity (though the analysis is the same), let's take the federal one at the end:

18 USC 875(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any demand or request for a ransom or reward for the release of any kidnapped person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Well, that one clearly doesn't apply.

(b) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Again, no threat of injury or kidnapping, so not there.

(c) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

No again, for the same reason.

(d) Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

So, here's the one - threat to injure the reputation of the addressee with intent to extort money. However, remember that defamation must be false. For example, say you borrow my car while drunk and damage the bumper. If I send you a letter threatening to sue you for it if you don't pay for the repair, it would damage your reputation for your neighbors to know you were a drunk driver... but I'm not committing extortion or threatening to injure your reputation, because there's nothing defamatory in my statement: it's true.

Assuming in this case that they did detect a download of midget goat porn from the recipient's cable modem (because while the scummiest lawyer in the world may twist the truth and skirt the edge of an outright lie to a court, in this case, it's relatively trivial to monitor a bittorrent swarm, and then the letter has at least the barest sliver of truth as an excuse), then the letter isn't extortion or defamatory: they did detect the download, and they'll inquire of your neighbors whether they jumped on your access point to download midget goat porn or whether it someone else, like you.

So, yeah, it's sleazy, and they're still going to have the problems noted by the judge in the Prenda case, but it's not technically extortion.

...the definition of extortion? For example:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-59

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2905.11

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=518-527

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/875

Where did the last sentence in this summary come from? It seems to be completely contradictory to the main content. Elaborate?

From summary: If the government has reasonable suspicion that you have illicit data, they can still compel you to decrypt it.

IANAL - however.... ;)

At least one possibility is that you can be granted immunity and compelled to testify or produce.

Kastigar v. United States

(1972), 406 U.S. 441 -- Use and derivative use immunity is coextensive with the protection of the Fifth Amendment. If a person who has been compelled to testify under a grant of immunity is later prosecuted, it is the burden of the government to prove incriminating evidence is derived from a wholly independent source.

I believe there may be other possibilities as well.

so natural gas costs 30% more per BTU input than fuel oil.

What planet do you live on?

heating oil $4.058/gallon, 138,700 BTU/gallon = $29.26 per million BTU
natural gas $ 0.55143 per hundred cubic feet (ccf), 102,000 BTU's per ccf = $5.41 per million BTU

Honestly, I feel I have to chime in here.

Snow,
Unless I misunderstand your stance here, you feel that complex laws are not only needed, but unavoidable.
You also seem to be arguing that it is the responsibility of the citizen to actively understand the laws that relate to actions they may choose to take.

On the surface, I agree with both of these assertions.

You have been very good at giving examples of laws which support your arguments.
For example, you have referenced Basic Traffic law, manslaughter, and hunting.

However, your choices for example themselves are flawed.

All of these are easily read, understood, and (generally speaking) follow commonly accepted behavior patterns.
These are areas of law where an average person has at least a chance to understand the what and the why that the law is meant to address, and most of these laws specify in (fairly simple terms) exactly what actions are and are not allowed.

I believe that I have found an extreme enough example (currently on the books, and affecting anyone who owes money to the state of ohio) to make sjames' point.

Please go look at This Link. (I will copy the pertinent sentence below, but for readability, it will be below my comment. )

Now, can you explain what that sentence means? I have a vague idea, but I am fairly confident that no lawyer would be willing to bet on his ability to accurately summarize that wall of text.

Unfortunately, there are thousands of pages of law that look almost exactly like this. Tax code in the USA is almost entirely this type of language, but the criminal code in many places is equally guilty.

The federal penal code is an excellent example. There are enough regulatory laws on the books that just about everyone has broken at least a few of them.
The primary issue isn't that people aren't aware of these laws, it's that you probably can't understand them.
Even the example i gave above has several references to other laws and documents.
""under section 118.19 of the Revised Code""
""under Section 6 of Article XIII and Section 13 of Article XVIII, Ohio Constitution""

So how many pages of law does this sentence actually reference?


Additionally, as sjames stated below, there are many laws on the books that aren't actively enforced.
These aren't just obscure laws about outdated, silly things like eating oranges in hotel rooms.
Many of them are regulatory requirements for documentation or storage requirements, with mandatory sentences.

Often, these lesser known, normally unenforced laws are used as an alternative method for "punishing criminals" who were acquitted of other crimes (or got on the wrong side of a law enforcement officer).

For example, without a hazmat placard and a Commercial drivers license you cannot transport more than 1000 lbs of liquid fuel (including the weight of the tank it is stored in).
This means that any of the larger RV camper trailers with 150gallon tanks are technically illegal to drive across state lines!
NOTE: I confirmed this limit with 3 law enforcement officers and the local fire department dispatch, but not a single one of them could cite the reference number for the law, only that it was a federal regulation. I managed to narrow it down to an epa regulation from 1981 but the search on http://nepis.epa.gov/ does not appear to work correctly.


So, if you get pulled over for a "seatbelt check" or "random traffic stop", and the officer decides he doesn't like you, you may find yourself being charged with Illegal transport of hazardous materials.

Good luck finding these laws ahead of time, even knowing about this one, I still couldn't locate it!

According to Ohio Revised Code 3101.01(A), effective in 2004, marrying VMs and ATMs is illegal.

Ohio needs to get with it and pass some less restrictive marriage laws!

According to Ohio Revised Code 3101.01(A), effective in 2004, marrying VMs and ATMs is illegal.

Left Turn
The driver of a vehicle intending to turn left Is required to yield the right-of-way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction. Prior to engaging a left-hand turn, the driver must wait for oncoming traffic to clear the intersection. One may advance into the intersection as a prelude to turning, provided that no other traffic control devices prohibit this action.

STOPPING
A driver must stop Before entering an intersection if there is not sufficient space on other side to accommodate the vehicle. The law applies whether or not a traffic signal gives the driver a right to proceed.

http://publicsafety.ohio.gov/links/hsy7607.pdf

"You cannot enter the intersection on a yellow unless in your judgement you cannot safely stop from your current position/speed."

You're wrong. Ohio's law says no such thing. It states that traffic shall not enter the intersection on red. Yellow is just a warning that red is coming.

Vehicular traffic, streetcars, and trackless trolleys facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow signal are thereby warned that the related green movement is being terminated or that a red indication will be exhibited immediately thereafter when vehicular traffic, streetcars, and trackless trolleys shall not enter the intersection.

"You cannot - CANNOT - enter an intersection if you cannot completely pass through it, even if you have a green light. This is known as blocking an intersection. This applies equally whether you are trying to go straight forward, or turn left."

The actual law reads thusly:

No driver shall enter an intersection or marked crosswalk or drive onto any railroad grade crossing unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection, crosswalk, or grade crossing to accommodate the vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley the driver is operating without obstructing the passage of other vehicles, streetcars, trackless trolleys, pedestrians, or railroad trains, notwithstanding any traffic control signal indication to proceed.

If there is sufficient space on the other side (the side to which you're turning) for your vehicle, you are absolutely permitted to enter the intersection while there is still opposing traffic that prevents you from turning left. Once the light is red, as long as everyone who is in the intersection has room to get out of the intersection, that law has not been violated.

Ohio Revised Code, Chapter 4511

Well gosh, I guess I can do your research for you. I'm a bit busy, but you can start here:

http://www.privacy.ca.gov/privacy_laws.htm

http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/glbact/glbsub1.htm

http://www.law.state.ak.us/department/civil/consumer/4548.html

http://government.dc.gov/DC/Government/Data+&+Transparency/Consumer+Protection/Consumer+Information+101/Consumer+Personal+Information+Security+Breach+Notification+Act

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca_toc/30_14_17.htm

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/1349.19

http://www.cdt.org/privacy/guide/protect/laws.php

Telecommunications Act (1996) Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI)

Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003

Shall I keep going? or are you prepared to admit that in this very same universe that we share, here in America, there are in fact laws governing the use, protection, and sharing of personal information? The laws aren't what I personally want them to be, but they exist, and the whole point of what I was saying is that the current hands-off free-market approach is BAD, and would be LESS BAD if there were MORE LAWS in this area -- a point which survives your assertion that the laws don't exist. Actually I don't have time to keep looking things up for you, so if you aren't prepared to admit it, then your denial will have to be the end of the discussion.

My final point, as a question to you, would be why would Borders even have a contract, if the contract didn't expand its rights beyond the legal defaults? Why would it bother to pay a lawyer to make up such a contract? Why would it bother to present the contract to consumers? If there were no laws governing it, and they could do whatever they want, then they would, no contract required. It doesn't even make sense that they would tie their own hands with their own contract, resulting in a lesser ability for them to do what they want to do.

Please read the actual law: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2933.52

Intercepting a private electronic communication without the consent of one of the two parties, and without a warrant is illegal

However, in this case, I suspect that no wiretapping actually occurred. Instead the company most likely accessed the device, and found a copy of the pictures. Since that copy of the communication was made with the consent of the sending party (as a side effect of actually sending the pictures), it was entirely legal. The actions would have been computer trespass, except that they were done with the permission of the lawful owner.

Thus the only crimes potentially committed were of how the pictures were used by the company after they were obtained.

I believe that's the case everywhere - police are required by law to disclose the locations of the checkpoints. I couldn't find the specific law, but a lot of people seem to think it exists. (though instead of a law, it may be an NHTSA guideline that states follow voluntarily to ensure their checkpoint is constitutionally valid):

http://www.drivinglaws.org/resources/dui-dwi/aggravated-dui/dui-checkpoints
http://www.duiblock.com/FAQ/
http://statepatrol.ohio.gov/sobcheck.stm

So, the senate is trying to prevent people from finding out information that the police are required to publish? If publishing the location of checkpoints is required to make the checkpoint constitutionally valid, then isn't a constitutional violation to block that information from reaching the public?

By publishing the location deep inside a newspaper or with a 30 second blurb on the news an hour before the checkpoint, the police may be following the letter of the law, but these apps seem to be meeting the spirit of the law.

And here is a law describing the filing fees to cover the costs of elections.

We can do this all day long but I should point out to you that your laps of reading comprehension skills doesn't not mean I was making anything up. I did not say all states, I said most of them. You finding one state to the contrary, does nothing to my statement. Also, the very same laws you pointed too describe filing fees and petitions of signatures indicating that in fact, the parties pay the government for the costs of the primary elections. Because it goes to the state and the state pumps it back out does nothing but confuses you.

Well, you can't really claim that a hospital's $300k treatment of a heart attack on an uninsured person is because the last guy died and stiffed them $300k.

The problem is that a lot of their services in the ER are there anyways. It's already paid for and accounted for. The EKG machines, the Ventilators, the staff and so on is already there. You could make a terrific case attempting to claim that the markup is there to ensure that those things and people will always be there. However, that case get twiddled away pretty quickly when someone with insurance ends up paying 30% through their insurance and co pay.

I cut a finger a few years back requiring 4 stitches in it. No problem, there are a bunch of nurses in my family so I sought on out, asked if it needed stitches or not (I knew it did) and ended up getting one of the family practitioners so sow it up for $50. If I went to the ER, that would have been $175 per hour for the room (and it wouldn't even be private), plus about $120-$150 for the numbing crap and 10 minutes with an intern to put the three stitches in while making jokes about looking like his wife's meatloaf (yes, I've been to the ER for Stitched too many time before). Oh yea, and then there is the 45 minute wait in the room to see a doc, and another 30 minutes or so after to see the discharge nurse. Altogether, the last time I got stitches, I was charged for about 2 hours ER time at $120 in which I only talked to a person for maybe 20-25 minutes total. In those remaining hour and a half, if I wasn't there, the room most certainly still was.

Anyways, I'm pretty sure the doc gave me the "this is the costs" discount. The alternative could have been 2 to 5 hundred dollars.

I don't really think there are too many people who are not paying their ER visit bills either. The rich, well they have insurance to cover their wealth in case something like that happens. The extremely poor, well they are covered by some government program whether it be medicaid or medicare or some variation. This leaves a lot of people who make more then enough to qualify for government assistance but not enough to purchase a health insurance policy. As for those who elect not to get coverage, they typically have somewhat decent jobs and will pay to save their credit rating or whatever.

In short, I do not think there are too many people who do not pay their medical bills. I think this is especially true with programs like HCAP which is designed compensate hospitals for this specific type of claim.

So, you have two cable companies and FIOS. That means you have three choices for High Speed Internet. If more cities had unrestricted access, there would be more players. Actually, I did a little research and Columbus does not have unrestricted access. Any company that wishes to provide cable video service in Columbus, OH, must get authorization from the Ohio Department of Commerce ( http://www.puco.ohio.gov/PUCO/Consumer/Information.cfm?id=8306 ). Additionally, since the elimination of local franchise in Ohio only occurred in 2007, it is a little early to reach a conclusion about what effect this change will have on competition throughout the state. Around 2015 we will be able to determine how this change is working out.

Get a clue. If it is accepted by the populace, or at least the judicial system, that a "trained security officer" can spot a terrorist just by looking at him, then that means that They can lock you up and hold you indefinitely based purely on the say-so of an individual.

No due process, no evidence, just "He's a terrorists - lock him up". Ultimate Police State power. You are NOT free if at any time, on a single persons word, you can be locked up indefinitely.

Nobody funded my college degree.

Most students get help and do not even realize it. Many States use money from the tax coffers to make higher education more affordable. Even people who beg, borrow, or steal the money to "pay their own way" through a university in these states are getting help from all tax payers.

Citation: Ohio's Office Of Budget Management Budget Highlights

Making Higher Education More Affordable

State Share of Instruction
To supplement the general operation of the state's 13 four-year universities, 24 regional branch campuses, one free standing medical college, 15 community colleges, and eight technical colleges, H.B. 119 appropriates over $3.5 billion in the fiscal years 2008-2009 biennium for unrestricted operating subsidies through the State Share of Instruction (SSI) line item. ....

Last time I read my state's book (Ohio, http://publicsafety.ohio.gov/links/hsy7607.pdf), that detail was not there. It is a rule I have learned through the media, not the law.

(1) Except as provided in subsections (2), (3), and (4), an individual who assaults, batters, wounds, resists, obstructs, opposes, or endangers a person who the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his or her duties is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
...
(a) "Obstruct" includes the use or threatened use of physical interference or force or a knowing failure to comply with a lawful command.

This is incredibly draconian and equates wounding a cop with (say) getting out of your car in a traffic stop. You also need to memorize large swaths of Michigan law (at the least, including lawful searches and questioning) to know what a lawful command is (since cops can and will issue illegal instructions, obeying which will be substantially to your detriment). It's basically a felony to look crosswise at a cop in Michigan, and all they need is the cop's word. Compare New York's law:

A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration when he intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function, by means of intimidation, physical force or interference, or by means of any independently unlawful act, or by means of interfering, whether or not physical force is involved, with radio, telephone, television or other telecommunications systems owned or operated by the state, or a county, city, town, village, fire district or emergency medical service or by means of releasing a dangerous animal under circumstances evincing the actor's intent that the animal obstruct governmental administration. Obstructing governmental administration is a class A misdemeanor.

It's a misdemeanor, and you have to use physical violence, threats, a dangerous animal, or an independently unlawful act. This has seriously dampened my ardor for experiencing Michigan tourism. You can't drag me back to Mackinac Island!

In Ohio, looking crosswise at a cop is a misdemeanor.

(A) No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official’s official capacity, shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official’s lawful duties.

Shit, it looks like if you want to live on Lake Erie, New York is a veritable land of liberty. Who knew? Maybe you should move to Ontario (apparently they call it something else; I couldn't find the statute).

I felt like looking up one more state. In Massachusetts it looks like you can obstruct and lie to your heart's content (as long as you don't create a substantial risk of bodily injury) but it is illegal to belong to the Communist party (obviously a wildly unconstitutional statute). It looks like adultery will still net you three years as well...that's what you get for living in one of the thirteen colonies. Abortion will get you seven years (twenty-five if she dies). Have they read these laws lat

I see that now.. When I first read it, I inserted some of the crap that the law required in my state

Anyways, the law gives the AZ police the ability to stop or detain people only when there is reasonable suspicion of a crime that has, is or is about to occur. That's only the foot in the door, they ask for identity, Juan refuses to give them anything but his name- now what would give them the right to ask for or question his immigration status based on that much interaction? Remember, the law says they may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.

So what happens is that the cops run the name through the computer and find either no record of the name at all, or more likely, they find multiple records of the name from several different states and perhaps another country. So the cop asks Juan to verify who he is because that name is so common, there are 40 different people or aliases in the system with it and 5 of them matching similar descriptions have warrants for parole violations or other felonies. Now, even though Juan doesn't have to say any more, his detention and potential arrest is solely on him at this point in time as the cop can't reasonable distinguish between the guy standing in front of him and half of the names that returned on the computer. The courts have already said that mistaken identity in arrests isn't a violation of a right when reasonable attempts to properly identify the person have been taken and it still fails. (yea, I know, it's still ohio but the exception liability is implied from a federal level known as color of law).

Juan says nothing but his name so the cop goes before a magistrate and asks for a 3905 order and the judge allows them to take finger prints. Or the cop could simply arrest the guy as one of the people with an outstanding warrant, do the normal finger printing process, find out he isn't the same guy, then release him without penalty.

Surprisingly, the ODPS videos are still available.

And I thought Ohio was the only state that had such fucked up sales tax laws. In Ohio, too, you cannot plainly use a zip code to determine sales tax, because the county lines to not abide by them. So you have to factor address, city, county and zip code.

You can find some information from the state of ohio in pdf's and csv's to try and help you sort through it. However, the same information can change depending on the election cycle ( https://thefinder.tax.ohio.gov/StreamlineSalesTaxWeb/ ).

While a prior poster mentioned that surely Amazon is full of intelligent people who can figure all this out, I do not believe they should have to. I cannot imagine having to put together a system that deals with each and every states archaic tax laws that change at any given time. What a pain in the ass that'd be. And how costly that would be to implement, ugh.

That's exactly how Ohio law works:
You must report earnings for services performed and any income paid or payable to you while you are claiming unemployment benefits.

If you work part-time or perform odd jobs during the weeks for which you file for unemployment benefits, you may still be paid unemployment benefits if your gross earnings are less than your weekly benefit amount. You must report gross earnings for the week (Sunday through Saturday) in which it is earned, even if you have not yet been paid.

If your earnings are less than your weekly benefit amount, Ohio law allows you an exemption of 20 percent your weekly benefit amount before a deduction is made.
linky

I'm actually surprised NY law is different in that it is the logical way to encourage people to attempt to get off the dole.

Fox didn't get a ruling that it's news can be lies. They got a ruling stating that their stations can control the content of the news being reported and refuse to allow something to be reported regardless of the truthfulness of it. One of their attorneys (or was it a company representative) suggested that they could even control it if it is a lie in order to limit liability. The ruling never said a word about reporting lies, just controlling the content of the reporting and it was over a local affiliate news program in Florida so it's not clear if the principle would work outside of Florida.

Also, you do not need a ruling. User responses are considered consumer endorsements which makes misrepresentations of the products illegal under federal law if the endorsements are reasonably considered as part of the purchasing consideration process. A site that displays the comments under the item in consideration would have to follow the false advertising rules and either place a disclaimer that's obvious to the consumer that they edited the negative responses or that results/performance isn't typical for all users.

On another note, most state laws have consumer protections against false or misleading advertisements in the same light. For instance, in my state, representing that the subject of a consumer transaction has sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses, or benefits that it does not have; or whether the supplier knew at the time the consumer transaction was entered into of the inability of the consumer to receive a substantial benefit from the subject of the consumer transaction; could apply. This is because by removing negative reviews, the supplier knows of limitations and dissatisfaction with the product and presents it with an otherwise misleading approvals from select consumers. In the case of the op, if a negative reviews were present, he probably would have purchased a different product. His intent of posting a negetive review was specifically to inform future consumers of his experiences with the problem so they wouldn't be taken like he did. Federal and state laws regulate the extent to which a product can be represented.

Fox didn't get a ruling that it's news can be lies. They got a ruling stating that their stations can control the content of the news being reported and refuse to allow something to be reported regardless of the truthfulness of it. One of their attorneys (or was it a company representative) suggested that they could even control it if it is a lie in order to limit liability. The ruling never said a word about reporting lies, just controlling the content of the reporting and it was over a local affiliate news program in Florida so it's not clear if the principle would work outside of Florida.

Also, you do not need a ruling. User responses are considered consumer endorsements which makes misrepresentations of the products illegal under federal law if the endorsements are reasonably considered as part of the purchasing consideration process. A site that displays the comments under the item in consideration would have to follow the false advertising rules and either place a disclaimer that's obvious to the consumer that they edited the negative responses or that results/performance isn't typical for all users.

On another note, most state laws have consumer protections against false or misleading advertisements in the same light. For instance, in my state, representing that the subject of a consumer transaction has sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses, or benefits that it does not have; or whether the supplier knew at the time the consumer transaction was entered into of the inability of the consumer to receive a substantial benefit from the subject of the consumer transaction; could apply. This is because by removing negative reviews, the supplier knows of limitations and dissatisfaction with the product and presents it with an otherwise misleading approvals from select consumers. In the case of the op, if a negative reviews were present, he probably would have purchased a different product. His intent of posting a negetive review was specifically to inform future consumers of his experiences with the problem so they wouldn't be taken like he did. Federal and state laws regulate the extent to which a product can be represented.

Not only that, the problem is deeper then appeasing a 125 year old company.

In the past few years, they have raised taxes significantly on businesses. One of the most troublesome is the Commercial Activity Tax (CAT) which is like a sales tax but applied to gross receipts of companies with more then $150,000 gross receipts. Now don't get confused here, this isn't net profits or anything like that, If you are subject to this tax and buy something for a customer but don't mark it up, you are still going to pay the tax on the entire amount of that transaction. It doesn't consider inventory costs or anything, it if comes in, it gets taxed.

Anyways, NCR, just like several other companies didn't pick up and leave for a foreign labor market or anything. They went to another state that had a more friendly tax code, possible cheaper employees (DHL paid the same when it pulled out of Ohio and went to Kentucky), and likely other things like less regulation and taxes like the Kilowatt-hour tax which drives commercial electricity and natural gas costs up.

Ohio had just become too hostile to companies In a position to move. And guess what, they are moving to other states who aren't hostile and Ohio's unemployment rates have skyrocketed. It used to be that we always trailed the national average. Even with the northern problems with the steel mills and so on, we generally were half a percent below the national rate and at time, 2 percent lower. Now, we are like California and we are above the national unemployment average and are a driving force behind it.

Then you have the idiocy of certain towns like Columbus Ohio who is spending $165 million dollars to tear down a 20 year old mall and build a city park in it's place while threatening to lay off fire fighter, Paramedics, Police, suspend garbage collection or raise fees, and so on to encourage a income tax hike to cover a city budget shortfall of $15 million for 2009 and a projected shortfall of $115 million for 2010. The obvious answer is to let the damn City Center Mall sit for a couple of years at almost no costs until something can be done to bring the economy back around. But that's an entirely different topic.

You're all invited to try Ohio Unemployment Beta -- just go here and create your free account!

https://unemployment.ohio.gov/

Actually, the state of Ohio allows tradesmen who aren't licensed to work under an assigned license to a business entity or license holder. Of course the law states that their work is as id directly supervised which means if the aprentice fucks up, the license holder gets it too.

In fact, this is pretty much a requirement to work without a license in order to get a license in the state of Ohio. Ohio Revised code 4740.06 states

(3) Either have been a tradesperson in the type of licensed trade for which the application is filed for not less than five years immediately prior to the date the application is filed, be a currently registered engineer in this state with three years of business experience in the construction industry in the trade for which the engineer is applying to take an examination, or have other experience acceptable to the appropriate section of the board;

This makes it impossible to be a licensed plumber without working in the field before you get a license.

I admit the part about the cop arresting him for doing nothing wrong is a bit perplexing, but I'm sure the outcome will be a positive one. To think, that guy could have avoided all the hassle, all the wasted time and money, just buy opening the plastic Circuit City bag and showing the receipt.

If you would have taken a few minutes to read the full account on Michael Righi's blog, you would have seen that he wasn't arrested for not showing what was in the bag, but for "obstructing official business". Righi just refused to give the police officer his license, something that Ohio code specifically says he's not allowed to do.

You would have also seen this:
I understand that my day would have gone a lot smoother if I had agreed to let loss prevention inspect my bag. I understand that my day would have gone a lot smoother if I had agreed to hand over my driver's license when asked by Officer Arroyo. However, I am not interested in living my life smoothly. I am interested in living my life on strong principles and standing up for my rights as a consumer, a U.S. citizen and a human being. Allowing stores to inspect our bags at will might seem like a trivial matter, but it creates an atmosphere of obedience which is a dangerous thing. Allowing police officers to see our papers at will might seem like a trivial matter, but it creates a fear-of-authority atmosphere which can be all too easily abused.

I'm not familiar on Ohio law, but in many places it's illegal to not have some form of ID when over 18.

Too bad, because if you had bothered to become familiar with Ohio law before opening your mouth you would have discovered that Ohio law specifically says that you aren't required to hand over ID:

"Nothing in this section authorizes a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for not providing any information beyond that person's name, address, or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense observed."

And BTW, just where in the United States is it illegal not to have ID on you?