"... Is the boss of the top law enforcement officer in the country."
The Attorney General is only the head of Federal law enforcement, which is nowhere near as strong or ubiquitous as many believe. The FBI basically being the top Federal law enforcement agency, and the FBI's numerous incidents of playing Keystone Kops are well known.
Pretty much all the other Federal law enforcement agencies -- customs, immigration, border affairs, etc... are under the purview of the Department of Homeland Security today, which is headed by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
"Or to put it another way --- Do you, Sir, really understand the true role of the POTUS?"
Apparently he does. "And nothing more" might be a slight exaggeration, but not much.
The function of POTUS is to be the head of the executive branch. In other words, he manages the BUSINESS of government that has been mandated by Congress. He heads the executive (functional) departments of government (or appoints delegates to do so).
He is also the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.
Other than that, no, the position was not really intended as that of "leader" of the country. If the Founders had wanted that, they could have made it a monarchy rather than a republic.
Believe it or not, WE are supposed to be the leaders. Government -- all of it -- is supposed to follow.
"And, does anyone actually use Android tablets? All the web usage stats show iOS devices leading by a massive margin.
What exactly are Android tablets used for? Doorstops?
They really are useless junk...."
You may be interested to know that there are far more Android phones in circulation now than iPhones. Also, you have to keep in mind that the Android OS was not adapted for tablets until relatively recently... much later than the release of iOS tablets.
Given those facts, I think it is just a matter of time until Android dominates the tablet market, too.
Now, don't misunderstand me: Android does have its faults. Like its default reliance on Google for proper operation (much like iOS reliance on Apple). However, there is a difference: it is possible to disable the Google apps on Android and use 3rd-party applications instead. That is not possible for a lot of functionality in iOS.
"is it worth being cured of addiction if, losing the addiction, we also lose part of who we are? Is it worth being cured of addiction if, losing the addiction, we also lose part of who we are?"
I suspect that OP might have already had such an operation...
"... 'd rather be free to record if I'm talking to someone else who I have some issue with."
Like I said earlier: freedom for security. I don't see how you can reconcile that with being a Libertarian, but it's your choice. It's definitely not a choice I would make.
"Across the board cuts will accomplish nothing more than cutting 8% of the fat, along with 8% of the muscle, bones, organs, and brains."
But whose fault is that? Not that of the citizens, but of government itself.
If the people mandate cuts, and the government cuts important stuff rather than the fat, the government has nobody to blame but themselves. And WE have nobody to blame but them. This is not one of those "it's the peoples' fault" scenarios.
They have to cut, sooner or later, and the sooner they do it, the less damage there will be. Just about everybody knows that. So why aren't you hounding your politicians about it?
"Do you also believe I'm breaking the law (or doing something wrong) when I set all my email clients to reject email recall notices so they only get deleted when I delete them, or I don't delete voicemails immediately upon hearing them the first time?"
These are a very different scenarios. I do not agree that they apply here. In the cases you describe here, someone is communicating with you, knowing full well that there will be a record of it. So they behave accordingly. (Usually, anyway.)
But with 1-party consent, you can NEVER be sure that something is not being recorded. As I stated earlier, in effect you have eliminated private conversations. That is to say: you have eliminated the ability of anyone to know that their conversation is private.
I assert that this is a very great loss of freedom. Sure, as I stated before, it does afford some protection from abusive people. But there is still the classic tradeoff of freedom for security. As a libertarian, I don't see how you can defend it from any angle.
"Sure. Why not ask if you are being recorded? I'm also a firm believer that all lies that benefit you or harm others should be considered fraud. If he says "no, you aren't being recorded" but he is, then it should be an illegal recording."
I would have a hard time disagreeing with that... except that it's NOT the law. At this time anyway, it's just wishful thinking.
"It does when you throw in an "evidence suggests the panel is incompetent to judge opera" in at the start."
No, it doesn't. It still does not say anything about the actual performance of the opera. Why would such a statement reflect on the actors/singers? Again, it is only a statement about the judges, not the opera itself.
"Based on what ? How _could_ they convince you ?"
Based on my experience. And they could convince me by doing it competently.
"Naturally, a debt collector would *NEVER* consent to being so recorded, EXACTLY because of this potential liability."
Many legitimate debt collectors actually record the conversation themselves. But I admit this could be a problem with an agency that intends to break the law.
Still, I maintain that "1-party consent" creates more problems than it solves.
You can do that in an "all-party" consent state too. You just can't use it in court.
I agree that it does present some problems, but in my opinion they are fewer problems than a "1-party consent" rule does.
With 1-party consent, there is no such thing as a private conversation. Ever. You NEVER know when some other party might be recording your conversation.
Doesn't the total abolition of privacy -- the complete inability to ensure you are saying something confidentially to someone -- bother you?
"The standard rule of thumb is that they are allowed to ask if - and only if - it's a bona fide occupational qualification."
Correct. I stated this myself already, in another post.
But my point was that as far as porno is concerned, they can't sign a contract anyway unless they are 18. So if they are old enough to sign a contract, they are old enough to do porno. There is no need to ask about age except to ask if they are legal to sign a contract.
"If you are saying nothing about drivers, how have you drawn a conclusion about whether the boogyman^W"state" has not proven competent to judge them ?"
It's extremely simple.
By analogy: the fact that a panel might be incompetent to judge opera says exactly nothing about whether the opera was in fact performed well. So a judge's incompetence does not necessarily have any relationship to whether something being judged is objectively (or even subjectively, to others) good or bad.
"Is your fundamental argument here the "state" is not capable of judging anyone ?"
My fundamental argument was, and is, that the state has not convinced me of its competence to judge drivers.
"Yes, my state is one party consent, and that party can be the one doing the recording. Kind of pointless."
Yes, exactly. It seems to me, if you were having a conversation with someone (in person or via telephone or whatever), and you said "Let's keep this confidential", and they agreed... that you would have a "reasonable expectation of privacy".
And most such laws are based on "a reasonable expectation of privacy".
The good news (only a little bit related) is that if you ever get or make a telephone call, and the other side says "calls may be recorded for [whatever reason]", you can safely record that conversation without notice to anybody because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
I agree that it does seem a bit ambiguous, but it does say that the employer must be acting on "specific information" that the employee has committed a breach of trust.
I would presume that if the company could not provide that "specific information", the employee could either (A) fail to cooperate, or (B) file a grievance or lawsuit.
Slashdot Mirror
"All in all the President's a very powerful guy."
But being a powerful guy is very, very different from being a "leader".
The last President who was worth a sh*t as a "leader" was John F. Kennedy.
"... Is the boss of the top law enforcement officer in the country."
The Attorney General is only the head of Federal law enforcement, which is nowhere near as strong or ubiquitous as many believe. The FBI basically being the top Federal law enforcement agency, and the FBI's numerous incidents of playing Keystone Kops are well known.
Pretty much all the other Federal law enforcement agencies -- customs, immigration, border affairs, etc... are under the purview of the Department of Homeland Security today, which is headed by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
"Or to put it another way --- Do you, Sir, really understand the true role of the POTUS?"
Apparently he does. "And nothing more" might be a slight exaggeration, but not much.
The function of POTUS is to be the head of the executive branch. In other words, he manages the BUSINESS of government that has been mandated by Congress. He heads the executive (functional) departments of government (or appoints delegates to do so).
He is also the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.
Other than that, no, the position was not really intended as that of "leader" of the country. If the Founders had wanted that, they could have made it a monarchy rather than a republic.
Believe it or not, WE are supposed to be the leaders. Government -- all of it -- is supposed to follow.
"And, does anyone actually use Android tablets? All the web usage stats show iOS devices leading by a massive margin.
What exactly are Android tablets used for? Doorstops?
They really are useless junk...."
You may be interested to know that there are far more Android phones in circulation now than iPhones. Also, you have to keep in mind that the Android OS was not adapted for tablets until relatively recently... much later than the release of iOS tablets.
Given those facts, I think it is just a matter of time until Android dominates the tablet market, too.
Now, don't misunderstand me: Android does have its faults. Like its default reliance on Google for proper operation (much like iOS reliance on Apple). However, there is a difference: it is possible to disable the Google apps on Android and use 3rd-party applications instead. That is not possible for a lot of functionality in iOS.
"... the oblivious mistake..."
Helping to keep up that 15%, I see.
I am all for stifling descent. I would rather go up.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
"is it worth being cured of addiction if, losing the addiction, we also lose part of who we are? Is it worth being cured of addiction if, losing the addiction, we also lose part of who we are?"
I suspect that OP might have already had such an operation...
"... 'd rather be free to record if I'm talking to someone else who I have some issue with."
Like I said earlier: freedom for security. I don't see how you can reconcile that with being a Libertarian, but it's your choice. It's definitely not a choice I would make.
Slip of the finger. That should have said 12.6 lumens/W.
I hope the price turns out to be reasonable. I just looked at an incandescent bulb package and it works out to only 3212.6 lumens/W.
"Across the board cuts will accomplish nothing more than cutting 8% of the fat, along with 8% of the muscle, bones, organs, and brains."
But whose fault is that? Not that of the citizens, but of government itself.
If the people mandate cuts, and the government cuts important stuff rather than the fat, the government has nobody to blame but themselves. And WE have nobody to blame but them. This is not one of those "it's the peoples' fault" scenarios.
They have to cut, sooner or later, and the sooner they do it, the less damage there will be. Just about everybody knows that. So why aren't you hounding your politicians about it?
I do.
"Do you also believe I'm breaking the law (or doing something wrong) when I set all my email clients to reject email recall notices so they only get deleted when I delete them, or I don't delete voicemails immediately upon hearing them the first time?"
These are a very different scenarios. I do not agree that they apply here. In the cases you describe here, someone is communicating with you, knowing full well that there will be a record of it. So they behave accordingly. (Usually, anyway.)
But with 1-party consent, you can NEVER be sure that something is not being recorded. As I stated earlier, in effect you have eliminated private conversations. That is to say: you have eliminated the ability of anyone to know that their conversation is private.
I assert that this is a very great loss of freedom. Sure, as I stated before, it does afford some protection from abusive people. But there is still the classic tradeoff of freedom for security. As a libertarian, I don't see how you can defend it from any angle.
"Sure. Why not ask if you are being recorded? I'm also a firm believer that all lies that benefit you or harm others should be considered fraud. If he says "no, you aren't being recorded" but he is, then it should be an illegal recording."
I would have a hard time disagreeing with that... except that it's NOT the law. At this time anyway, it's just wishful thinking.
"It does when you throw in an "evidence suggests the panel is incompetent to judge opera" in at the start."
No, it doesn't. It still does not say anything about the actual performance of the opera. Why would such a statement reflect on the actors/singers? Again, it is only a statement about the judges, not the opera itself.
"Based on what ? How _could_ they convince you ?"
Based on my experience. And they could convince me by doing it competently.
"Naturally, a debt collector would *NEVER* consent to being so recorded, EXACTLY because of this potential liability."
Many legitimate debt collectors actually record the conversation themselves. But I admit this could be a problem with an agency that intends to break the law.
Still, I maintain that "1-party consent" creates more problems than it solves.
"They call, you press record."
You can do that in an "all-party" consent state too. You just can't use it in court.
I agree that it does present some problems, but in my opinion they are fewer problems than a "1-party consent" rule does.
With 1-party consent, there is no such thing as a private conversation. Ever. You NEVER know when some other party might be recording your conversation.
Doesn't the total abolition of privacy -- the complete inability to ensure you are saying something confidentially to someone -- bother you?
"Why is it ridiculous to make it legal to record what people say to me? If you don't want it on record, don't say it."
So... you don't believe private conversations should even exist? I should not be able to say something to you confidentially?
"The standard rule of thumb is that they are allowed to ask if - and only if - it's a bona fide occupational qualification."
Correct. I stated this myself already, in another post.
But my point was that as far as porno is concerned, they can't sign a contract anyway unless they are 18. So if they are old enough to sign a contract, they are old enough to do porno. There is no need to ask about age except to ask if they are legal to sign a contract.
I never thought I'd see the day when our data privacy was being protected to this degree by the FTC. But I am all in favor.
Considering that the majority of the Federal government today *IS* fat, I have no problem asking for cuts across the board.
But I go even further with "returning the control of money" to the people. The Fed needs to go away, for one thing.
"If you are saying nothing about drivers, how have you drawn a conclusion about whether the boogyman^W"state" has not proven competent to judge them ?"
It's extremely simple.
By analogy: the fact that a panel might be incompetent to judge opera says exactly nothing about whether the opera was in fact performed well. So a judge's incompetence does not necessarily have any relationship to whether something being judged is objectively (or even subjectively, to others) good or bad.
"Is your fundamental argument here the "state" is not capable of judging anyone ?"
My fundamental argument was, and is, that the state has not convinced me of its competence to judge drivers.
"Yes, my state is one party consent, and that party can be the one doing the recording. Kind of pointless."
Yes, exactly. It seems to me, if you were having a conversation with someone (in person or via telephone or whatever), and you said "Let's keep this confidential", and they agreed... that you would have a "reasonable expectation of privacy".
And most such laws are based on "a reasonable expectation of privacy".
The good news (only a little bit related) is that if you ever get or make a telephone call, and the other side says "calls may be recorded for [whatever reason]", you can safely record that conversation without notice to anybody because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
I know of no law that says a company can't ask for DOB after you are hired.
However, asking for it on an application is de facto asking how old you are. No two ways about it: it's definitely against Federal law.
I agree that it does seem a bit ambiguous, but it does say that the employer must be acting on "specific information" that the employee has committed a breach of trust.
I would presume that if the company could not provide that "specific information", the employee could either (A) fail to cooperate, or (B) file a grievance or lawsuit.