Note when I said '25 dollars', I mean in Georgia. Other states have different fines for driving around 'While being licensed to drive but without physically holding the license'. As long as you're in your own car, they can look up the tag and instantly find your license information. In fact, they look up the tag before walking to your car (In case you're a wanted felon or it's a stolen car or something.), and even have seen your license and picture before then, so asking for the license when you are the owner of the car is just a bit of asshattery.
I wouldn't recommend trying it in anyone else's car, you'll end up with a much larger ticket that you can have reduced if you show up at the courthouse with license in hand, unless you've memorized your license number or something, but in your own car they'll be able to look you up pretty quickly.
And, luckily, the jackboots haven't got to those laws, so they're still pretty low in general. I suspect that if more people start asserting they do not have their license, they will a) raise the fine, and b) start asserting that merely being somewhere with your car and no one that could have driven it means you legally 'drove' there and have to produce a license. (If, like I said, they wouldn't already do that. That seems a reasonable possiblity to me, so I would want to speak to a lawyer before answering that question if they asked that after I said I didn't have my license on me.)
As for morality...I have no problem with producing a license after stopped. I do have a rather large problem with the large number of pretext stops and license checks they operate that have no suspicion of a crime whatsoever. But assuming that a stop is legitimate, I have no problem demonstrating I am licensed to operate a car during it, even though, as I said, they actually already know it.
You know, I just realized that explains it, thanks.
They're afraid I'm in collusion with some checkout person, who didn't ring up one of my items.
Of course the logical problem there is that I don't decide who checks me out, I get assigned the next person, but me and them working together could time things so I end up with the correct person at least a portion of the time. I could always abort and duck back out of line, or even hand the expensive thing to the clerk to restock because I changed my mind. (In fact, I actually have done that at Frys', I wonder if they wondered if I had gotten the 'wrong' cashier.(1) )
And now I'm just pissed. It's their problem, they have cameras on the checkout. I understood when I thought they were trying to stop me, if I get out of the store with it, I win. But if it's their own people, they can check the damn tapes.
1) I do that because I've worked in retail, as a cashier at Walmart, before and know employees would much rather you hand the damn things you don't want to the cashier instead of leaving it laying around in the wrong place where they have to go and collect it. Seriously people, stop acting like asses. They don't give a damn if you changed your mind, they don't get paid on commission and don't care what you buy or why you buy it or not. Even stores that have commissions don't pay the cashiers it, they didn't 'sell' you anything, they just rang you up.
But no, every hour or so I'd have to walk around my register and pick up all the stuff people decided to set down in random places because they were too damn embarrassed to say 'I changed my mind, I don't want this, here you go.' and hand it to me. Fucking cowards trying to avoid some imaginary 'conflict' when I wouldn't even remember their face fifteen minutes later and don't give a damn I have one more item to carry the next time I made a trip to the customer service desk, or hand to other cashiers when they walked by going there. But I certainly did give a damn that I had to keep wandering around to tidy up, especially when I was busy so I had to do it before I went on break.
If your friend was not capable of making decisions, or didn't make it before leaving, then they have a very good reason to not let random people drive off with his car. For all they know, you're just some random guy that was in the car with him, and you might steal his car. If they can't give it to someone else, and he can't take it, they have to tow it if it can't be left there.
Even if your friend let you take it, the cops can declare that a car does not appear to be 'roadworthy' after an accident, and not let anyone drive away in it.
I don't mind places that mark the receipt. I don't know if they can legally demand you let them for that or not, but they actually have a legit, non-prying reason for that...so that they know you actually took the goods out of the store, and thus are not eligible to take the goods out of the store a second time even with that receipt. I wish they automate it, give you a return receipt and a tiny door receipt and you just hand them the latter.
But Fry's pisses me off with their pawing through my bags. I put up with because they literally are the only useful electronics store in the entire damn state, but they can see me walk from the register. They have never caught anyone that way. You'd have to shoplift through the register, and then move it from your pocket to the bag before walking out! WTF?
There. Is. Nothing. To. Steal. except those little nicknacks on the counter, and a more logical form of protection would be to get rid of those. Not that anyone could steal stuff from those with all the people standing around anyway.
And, yes, I know people standing at the doors deters shoplifters, but why not have them there to just mark receipts and just trust I have not stolen something off a shelf while walking down a thirty-foot long four-feet wide isle in full view of twenty employees (What are all those people in the front doing anyway?) and thirty customers. Is that really that likely, and would I really stick it in my bag if I did? I'm already fiddling with my wallet and 'accidentally' putting my receipt in my pocket, while walking towards the door, wouldn't I just put whatever I took in there also?
I'm sure there plenty of theft at that store, but it's done by putting things in your pocket and walking out without going through the register, and they don't search your bag because you don't have one. Or going through the register with it hidden and continuing to keep it hidden on the way out the door. Shoplifters do not walk away from the register, heave a huge sigh of relief, pull the item out, and carry it openly out the door. In fact, most shoplifters probably keep the stuff hidden until they sit down in their car, or if they're really paranoid, until they drive out of the parking lot.
This is why I don't carry around my fucking driver's license anymore, but leave it in my car. I don't write checks, I can use my debit card as debit if stores want to check IDs on CC purchases, I don't smoke or often drink, so unless I'm specifically going to do one of those things, I don't stick my license in my wallet. The government wants to play tricks asserting that it is legally the property of the state and thus they can demand I hand it over to them at any time, fine, I just will fail to have it in my possession, and then let's see what the hell they do then.
If they actually did demand I locate it, it's possible I'd just assert I didn't have it on me at all, even if they specifically asked if it was in my car. It's only a 25 dollar fine to drive around without your license physically in your possession. (Assuming you possess one.) And that's assuming they could make that charge stick if they accosted me somewhere that my car was actually parked in a parking lot, if they ask me if I drove there, I'd plead the fifth and ask for a lawyer.
Hell, I might even just plead the fifth as to the existence of my car. Why not? If I just said I didn't have my license on me, and they ask if where my car is, they're clearly trying to charge me with driving without a license. I don't have to help them by telling them where my car is, if it's here or somewhere else, and by implication whether or not I drove to get here. While people don't have to answer police questions generally, they certainly don't have to answer questions like 'Did you commit a crime a few hours ago?' or 'If you had committed a crime recently, where would the evidence be?'.
In fact, I think there is some sort of legal argument there in general. As they appear to charging people solely on whether or not they have a license, it would be interesting to attempt to assert the fifth amendment over all questions and demands WRT my license because of my, quite correct, fear of assisting criminal proceedings against myself. Maybe I'll demand a lawyer from the very start and refuse to answer any questions at all about the possible existence of any sort of driver's license.
They're clearly trying to make me incriminate myself in some manner, and I have the right to converse with a court-appointed attorney before answering their questions. Let's watch them get hoisted by their own petard...if they're going to charge me with failing to cooperate, I'll turn around and point out they were clearly investigating me, and I don't have to answer any self-incriminating questions (Which, as a constitutional amendment, trumps any silly 'show ID' law or regulation they might have.) and they refused to provide me an attorney or read me my rights.
Yes, the courts have said that being required to identify yourself is legal, but that was before they started arresting people solely because of their behavior towards showing driver's licenses. As they've apparently come up with some sort of secret law that allows them to arrest people based on license-status, I'm within my rights to consult with an attorney before disclosing, in any manner, any possible possession of a driver's license or the existence or nonexistence thereof.
They'll end up in the absurd position of asserting it wasn't any sort of investigation of me, as they can't legally charge me with failing to show ID. In which case...what the hell were they doing? Why am I court?
They don't get to play both sides of this. The police cannot require people to disclose things to them and arrest them and charge them with a crime if they don't like the answer. If my answer may result in helping a criminal prosecution against me, I have a perfect right not to answer, even if the answer, in my situation, isn't the one that would incriminate me. (As being required to prove the answer would personally incriminate you would, duh, require incriminating yourself.) What's more, I have the right to an attorney to decide if the answer would incrimi
'Shopkeeper's Priviledge' is just a subset of 'citizen's arrest'. Citizens are allowed to detain anyone they see committing a crime. They must actually witness the crime themselves. (Shopkeepers priviledge might actually allow one person to witness it and a group of people who did not personally witness it detain that person on that person's word, which is often not normally allowed in a citizen's arrest, but it's the same basic concept.)
Most stores have a policy that the person must be continually observed, but that doesn't, strictly, appear to be required according to the law, but merely a way to avoid legal liability and PR. But they must actually see you appear to conceal something, and then not pay for it as you leave the store, and then they can execute a 'citizen's arrest' because they, in good faith, believe you just committed the crime of theft. Notice it's not only the store that can do this...any other random shopper could do it, the arrestor doesn't have to be the victim of the crime. (Boy would the store be confused there.)
In this case, it almost completely doesn't apply, because a) They didn't witness a crime, and b) he wasn't charged with the crime they didn't witness, he was basically charged with failing to show his driver's license. Even if the store had the legal right to detain him, which they almost certainly didn't, that still doesn't mean the police can charge him with a made-up crime. Even if he was utterly wrong and the store did have the right to detain him, he was, in fact, still there, so clearly hadn't broken any laws by 'escaping'.
Here's an interesting question: Did the officer ask for the store employees driver licenses? After all, they were the people clearly committing the act of kidnapping, and the other person was the one who called the police on them.
I'd like to go ahead and admit that I'm one of these people. Unfortunately, the Republicans now are starting not to follow through on the fiscal conservatism.
How old are you? Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II account for 70% of the national debt. Nixon and Ford vastly increased social security, and doubled the national deficit from 6% to 13%. Eisenhower built an interstate highway system and launched the space race. Hoover was elected as part of the Progressive Movement, proposing Federal Dept. of Education and pensions for the elderly, and was a Republican in name only. What Republican are you talking about, Calvin fucking Coolidge?
The meme that Republicans are fiscally conservative has, thank God, been destroyed recently, but now we've got this absurd meme that they used it be. Can someone please point to a single shred of evidence that this has ever been true?
The Democrats, in all aspects of spending, have been more restrained than the Republicans for more than 80 years. Look it up. Pick any standard of government spending or growth that you want. And when the Democrats do add programs they are hugely popular ones, which, this being a democracy, should be a little relevant. The Republican, however, stopped adding 'useful' programs with Nixon, and started, instead, completely surreal handouts to large corporations.
What the Republicans are (Somewhat recently starting with Reagan, and, to a less extent, Nixon.) restrained at is taxation. They spend the money they don't have just fine, on things people don't want.
But, hey, maybe you are old enough to remember Calvin Coolidge and thus don't care about the fact we're going to be paying off Republican handouts for the next fifty years.
In fact, you can be a libertarian communist. Someone who thinks communism will magically work so well that you won't really need the government except to keep order, and everyone will just decide to be communists. I believe this is currently called 'anarcho-socialism', but it makes as much sense to call it 'libertarian communism'. (Or, at least, going 90% of the way to 'anarcho-socialism' would be called that.)
It's not really any wackier than libertarian capitalism, the idea that capitalism will work so well you won't really need the government except to keep order, which is what current libertarians think. In fact, under that model, some socialism is already assumed, like people providing for the elderly out of the goodness of their heart.
There's not actually, logically, any reason to distinguish the two. Implement libertarianism and either one will happen, or the other will happen, or some combination of both.
Or, alternately, powerful people will take over large amounts of property (Probably people who already own them) and run roughshed over everyone else, which is the more likely of outcomes. Libertarian feudalism seems a good name to me.
If you want someone who know what's going on, go with Edwards. The GOP is scared shitless of his message. Don't believe the attempts to paint him as a 'hypocrit' for having investments, or the insane attempt to paint his makeup costs so he looks good on TV as excessive...everyone spends that much.
As for Ron Paul, he's the only Republican that could possibly win in a general election. But there's no way in hell the GOP will nominate him.
Those rights are almost always phrased as a social right, which could just as easily mean, and the polls tend to bear this out, that slashdot readers are socially 'liberal' in the classical sense.
But when talking about corporations, slashdot readers are almost always opposed to large ones that have power (So much that, for example, the fact that people tend, hypocritically, to not critize Apple has been pointed out.), which isn't libertarian at all. It is, however, fairly 'progressive'.
The evidence is that slashdot readers tend towards the left, the current mish-mash of liberal ideas for the individual but the progressive ideas of the government trying to fix manage corporations, not 'libertarianism'.
OTOH, it's entirely possibly, based on the apparent lack of knowledge of libertarianism experienced in this debate, that those same readers think they're libertarians in some manner.
I suppose one of those magical free-market certification people will spring up and go around testing everyone to pays a fee to display a sticker? Yeah, that's incredibly likely.
No shit. I've seen at least two entirely separate people, reading on only this far in the page, that assert libertarians would fucking provide national health care. What the hell?
The fundamental difference between government and private is that the government has a monopoly on the use of physical force (if a person or group in the private sector initiates the use of physical force, they are committing a crime).
Private corporations do have the ability to use force. Try not paying your rent and refusing to leave your house and see how well that works out.
What, those are police officers throwing you out? Well, thank goodness the libertarians will do something about that...oh, wait, no they won't.
The fact that the state is the enforcer of private property rights doesn't mean jack-shit if you are going to leave those rights intact.
And, before someone misunderstands, I'm not calling to do anything to those rights, I'm pointing that a very very large portion of corporate abuse of people is by using property rights, which are, in actual fact, backed up by threat of force. The fact the physical agents of this force are the government is meaningless to this argument unless libertarians are planning to change this when they take power from the government.
Why some people consider it a good idea to give the more powerful entity even more power in other to control the less powerful entity is something I will never understand.
BECAUSE WE CONTROL THE GOVERNMENT, AND WE DON'T CONTROL CORPORATIONS.
As I have ranted about elsewhere, but not here, I really wish the Republicans would get back to 'small business' Forget all this race-baiting thousand-year-war-on-terror all-liberals-are-evil bullcrap. I really really wish the Republicans would run on solely their 'small government' policies.
I tell this to people, and they assume I'm a disgruntled Republican. Hell no. Anyone who ran, anyone who has ran, solely on cutting social security and against national security and against regulating food and businesses, would lose, and lose incredibly badly.
If people want to know why the GOP seems to be a fairly random collection of people with nothing in common except extreme dislike of something or someone, it's because their supposed platform is, honestly, supported by no one, so they are forced to 'improvise'.
The government seems to run fine when people who believe in government run it. It's when Republicans that don't believe in it run it that it mysteriously seems to develop problems.
Exactly. This is one of those slippery-slope things. It seems reasonable, but, in the end, all data humanity knows was in physical form at some time or another, and could have been preserved at that point.
Then that's the arguments they need to make in court, not 'We don't have a record of the data'.
And, incidentally, it probably wouldn't work. Just logging the data to the same hard drive might not work, but no one is making them do that. They can send it to another drive, they can log it over the network to somewhere else using NFS, etc. If they are truly unable to log the data without the system breaking, they can explain that and ask that the court provide some sort of packet-sniffing computer to just watch the incoming connections and record the IPs.
There are 'hardship' arguments that can be made in response to discovery orders, but those never result in the discovery not happening. Sometimes it reduces the size of discovery to start with, and requires further requests be made for more data. Sometimes it results in copies being required instead of originals. Sometimes it requires the opposing side to pay for the equipment.
But it doesn't result in a 'win' for the people who don't want the discovery, and the court looks very poorly on people who claim hardship to try to avoid discovery instead of having legit needs, which is what I suspect would be going on here, because logging IPs isn't particularly difficult or CPU intensive.
Of course, they haven't made that argument, so it's an entirely moot point.
Yeah! Just like if someone were to demand a copy of all my correspondence with my bank, I'd have to photocopy every book I own! If only courts had come, hundreds of years ago, with some sort of concept of demanding all X instead of demanding everything the other person possesses.
Oh, wait, they did.
Just because the court has ruled that everything passing through memory is already 'recorded' doesn't mean that everything passing through memory is part of the discovery order. The discovery order requires all IP connecting to the tracker to be turned over, not 'everything that's ever been recorded by the computer'.
Does no one here understand even vaguely how courts operate?
And, yes, the amount of data is already considered during discovery. Both to limit irrelevant data, and to limit the sheer demand: For example, if for some legal reason it was important to know which books I had read, I would end up having to turn over the titles, not photocopies, and the opposing side would have to explicitly demand photocopies of books they wanted, and would have to pay for the cost past a certain amount.
Likewise, if someone demanded the contents of someone's entire memory at all times, a demand that is unlikely to ever be fulfilled, but if they did and it was, they themselves would have to figure out some way of recording that and provide something to record it to.
Right. Basically, discovery can require you to turn over information you have, but can't require you to turn over information you just know.
Like, if you know a person's name, they can't make you turn that over in discovery, but if you happen to have it written down, they can require 'all documents that refer to John Doe'. (Whether or not they can make you tell them something in your head at all is a long and complicated legal question, but they can't do it via simple discovery.)
They tried to argue that, just like no discovery can say 'You are now required to transcribe all converstations with someone', it can't say 'You are now required to record all IPs'. That if people were already making transcriptions, yes, the court could order them handed over, but they are not making any.
The court said 'No, a closer analogy is that you're transcribing them on self-destructing paper, and we can make you use regular paper and hand them over. We can't stop you from stopping to record them entirely, but as long as they're in memory, you have already actually recorded them in a legal sense. They are physically represented in property of yours.'.
I know how people want this case to go, but it seems that is a pretty reasonable legal argument at this point. OTOH, it could be used to argue that people are legally required to tap their own phone and hand it over if someone has a discovery order requiring all 'voice recordings' to be handed over and something in the phone connection buffers in memory.
That sounds like a job for SELinux. Lock the system down so hard it doesn't allow root logins at all, and logins under the id that the servers are running under. Have all that become enabled, say, five minutes after boot, or that it starts enabled and must be disabled from the boot command line during boot.
Make sure the system responds with an error message that explains all this if you try to login as one of the protected accounts...that to login you have to reboot the server.
$1.50 above the old minimum wage of $5.15 an hour. As in, about $6.50, maybe $7 an hour if you're lucky. I don't know if it's gone up now that new minimum wage is, at this moment, $5.85.
I don't know where you got $7.50 an hour, or the apparently $9 an hour you think Walmart pays. Maybe it does pay that in some places.
I think I explained when they tend to be right and wrong: When they're attacking concepts, they're almost entirely on the right side. When they start attacking implimentations, instead of the concept they claim to be attacking, you know they're in the wrong but won't admit it.
Like with the ADA thing. Their premise what was the ADA didn't really help people.
As evidence of this...they presented no evidence of it. Instead, they showed an entire town that some lawyer had sued at once for violating the ADA, despite the fact almost ever shop there was completely in complience. That's not a failure of the ADA, that's the failure of a fucked up court system that doesn't require people filing frivolous lawsuits to pay damages.
And they also demonstrated that the definition of 'handicapped' was almost meaningless and lots of people could get stickers who, logically, wouldn't need them...but they failed to demonstrate this actually happened.
And then, they, as a joke, demonstrated that even places that followed all the rules couldn't handle someone in an iron lung, of which there are about a dozen people in the US. That was hilarious, but not actually that relevant.
Oh, and they whined about how much space handicapped parking spaces took up.
There were two valid objections they came up with. One is that it requiring all sorts of existing businesses to put handicapped ramps in was a large hardship, and asking people to do all that work for free was wrong. But, um...that already happened. It's over. Yes, new buildings need to follow the ADA, but it's trivial to make sure a new building follows the rules, just like it has to follow every other building code.
And the other was that some businesses might be failing to hired handicapped people because they are scared of the ADA, scared that, in some way, they might fall short, and thus the business will get sued. An interesting and valid point, and one I wish they'd expanded on, but apparently not.
You can call it 'bias' if you want, but it's not. They'd made some good points I don't agree with on a lot of topics, including government regulations. But every once in a while you can tell they're stretching, and calling 'Bullshit' on something that is mostly a good idea, and they have to run around finding outliers to point at.
Actually, a really good way to tell is to see if they have some person who represents the opposite side, the side of bullshit, and sounds like a complete moron. If they do, it's a good bet they're making a valid point. If they don't, if the only people they can locate to dispute them appear to be sane advocates, than they're probably stretching it.
Slashdot Mirror
WalMart also doesn't have the right to staple or tape up your bags received from other stores before you enter their store either.
And you don't have the right to enter Walmart without complying with their request.
Note when I said '25 dollars', I mean in Georgia. Other states have different fines for driving around 'While being licensed to drive but without physically holding the license'. As long as you're in your own car, they can look up the tag and instantly find your license information. In fact, they look up the tag before walking to your car (In case you're a wanted felon or it's a stolen car or something.), and even have seen your license and picture before then, so asking for the license when you are the owner of the car is just a bit of asshattery.
I wouldn't recommend trying it in anyone else's car, you'll end up with a much larger ticket that you can have reduced if you show up at the courthouse with license in hand, unless you've memorized your license number or something, but in your own car they'll be able to look you up pretty quickly.
And, luckily, the jackboots haven't got to those laws, so they're still pretty low in general. I suspect that if more people start asserting they do not have their license, they will a) raise the fine, and b) start asserting that merely being somewhere with your car and no one that could have driven it means you legally 'drove' there and have to produce a license. (If, like I said, they wouldn't already do that. That seems a reasonable possiblity to me, so I would want to speak to a lawyer before answering that question if they asked that after I said I didn't have my license on me.)
As for morality...I have no problem with producing a license after stopped. I do have a rather large problem with the large number of pretext stops and license checks they operate that have no suspicion of a crime whatsoever. But assuming that a stop is legitimate, I have no problem demonstrating I am licensed to operate a car during it, even though, as I said, they actually already know it.
You know, I just realized that explains it, thanks.
They're afraid I'm in collusion with some checkout person, who didn't ring up one of my items.
Of course the logical problem there is that I don't decide who checks me out, I get assigned the next person, but me and them working together could time things so I end up with the correct person at least a portion of the time. I could always abort and duck back out of line, or even hand the expensive thing to the clerk to restock because I changed my mind. (In fact, I actually have done that at Frys', I wonder if they wondered if I had gotten the 'wrong' cashier.(1) )
And now I'm just pissed. It's their problem, they have cameras on the checkout. I understood when I thought they were trying to stop me, if I get out of the store with it, I win. But if it's their own people, they can check the damn tapes.
1) I do that because I've worked in retail, as a cashier at Walmart, before and know employees would much rather you hand the damn things you don't want to the cashier instead of leaving it laying around in the wrong place where they have to go and collect it. Seriously people, stop acting like asses. They don't give a damn if you changed your mind, they don't get paid on commission and don't care what you buy or why you buy it or not. Even stores that have commissions don't pay the cashiers it, they didn't 'sell' you anything, they just rang you up.
But no, every hour or so I'd have to walk around my register and pick up all the stuff people decided to set down in random places because they were too damn embarrassed to say 'I changed my mind, I don't want this, here you go.' and hand it to me. Fucking cowards trying to avoid some imaginary 'conflict' when I wouldn't even remember their face fifteen minutes later and don't give a damn I have one more item to carry the next time I made a trip to the customer service desk, or hand to other cashiers when they walked by going there. But I certainly did give a damn that I had to keep wandering around to tidy up, especially when I was busy so I had to do it before I went on break.
If your friend was not capable of making decisions, or didn't make it before leaving, then they have a very good reason to not let random people drive off with his car. For all they know, you're just some random guy that was in the car with him, and you might steal his car. If they can't give it to someone else, and he can't take it, they have to tow it if it can't be left there.
Even if your friend let you take it, the cops can declare that a car does not appear to be 'roadworthy' after an accident, and not let anyone drive away in it.
I don't mind places that mark the receipt. I don't know if they can legally demand you let them for that or not, but they actually have a legit, non-prying reason for that...so that they know you actually took the goods out of the store, and thus are not eligible to take the goods out of the store a second time even with that receipt. I wish they automate it, give you a return receipt and a tiny door receipt and you just hand them the latter.
But Fry's pisses me off with their pawing through my bags. I put up with because they literally are the only useful electronics store in the entire damn state, but they can see me walk from the register. They have never caught anyone that way. You'd have to shoplift through the register, and then move it from your pocket to the bag before walking out! WTF?
There. Is. Nothing. To. Steal. except those little nicknacks on the counter, and a more logical form of protection would be to get rid of those. Not that anyone could steal stuff from those with all the people standing around anyway.
And, yes, I know people standing at the doors deters shoplifters, but why not have them there to just mark receipts and just trust I have not stolen something off a shelf while walking down a thirty-foot long four-feet wide isle in full view of twenty employees (What are all those people in the front doing anyway?) and thirty customers. Is that really that likely, and would I really stick it in my bag if I did? I'm already fiddling with my wallet and 'accidentally' putting my receipt in my pocket, while walking towards the door, wouldn't I just put whatever I took in there also?
I'm sure there plenty of theft at that store, but it's done by putting things in your pocket and walking out without going through the register, and they don't search your bag because you don't have one. Or going through the register with it hidden and continuing to keep it hidden on the way out the door. Shoplifters do not walk away from the register, heave a huge sigh of relief, pull the item out, and carry it openly out the door. In fact, most shoplifters probably keep the stuff hidden until they sit down in their car, or if they're really paranoid, until they drive out of the parking lot.
This is why I don't carry around my fucking driver's license anymore, but leave it in my car. I don't write checks, I can use my debit card as debit if stores want to check IDs on CC purchases, I don't smoke or often drink, so unless I'm specifically going to do one of those things, I don't stick my license in my wallet. The government wants to play tricks asserting that it is legally the property of the state and thus they can demand I hand it over to them at any time, fine, I just will fail to have it in my possession, and then let's see what the hell they do then.
If they actually did demand I locate it, it's possible I'd just assert I didn't have it on me at all, even if they specifically asked if it was in my car. It's only a 25 dollar fine to drive around without your license physically in your possession. (Assuming you possess one.) And that's assuming they could make that charge stick if they accosted me somewhere that my car was actually parked in a parking lot, if they ask me if I drove there, I'd plead the fifth and ask for a lawyer.
Hell, I might even just plead the fifth as to the existence of my car. Why not? If I just said I didn't have my license on me, and they ask if where my car is, they're clearly trying to charge me with driving without a license. I don't have to help them by telling them where my car is, if it's here or somewhere else, and by implication whether or not I drove to get here. While people don't have to answer police questions generally, they certainly don't have to answer questions like 'Did you commit a crime a few hours ago?' or 'If you had committed a crime recently, where would the evidence be?'.
In fact, I think there is some sort of legal argument there in general. As they appear to charging people solely on whether or not they have a license, it would be interesting to attempt to assert the fifth amendment over all questions and demands WRT my license because of my, quite correct, fear of assisting criminal proceedings against myself. Maybe I'll demand a lawyer from the very start and refuse to answer any questions at all about the possible existence of any sort of driver's license.
They're clearly trying to make me incriminate myself in some manner, and I have the right to converse with a court-appointed attorney before answering their questions. Let's watch them get hoisted by their own petard...if they're going to charge me with failing to cooperate, I'll turn around and point out they were clearly investigating me, and I don't have to answer any self-incriminating questions (Which, as a constitutional amendment, trumps any silly 'show ID' law or regulation they might have.) and they refused to provide me an attorney or read me my rights.
Yes, the courts have said that being required to identify yourself is legal, but that was before they started arresting people solely because of their behavior towards showing driver's licenses. As they've apparently come up with some sort of secret law that allows them to arrest people based on license-status, I'm within my rights to consult with an attorney before disclosing, in any manner, any possible possession of a driver's license or the existence or nonexistence thereof.
They'll end up in the absurd position of asserting it wasn't any sort of investigation of me, as they can't legally charge me with failing to show ID. In which case...what the hell were they doing? Why am I court?
They don't get to play both sides of this. The police cannot require people to disclose things to them and arrest them and charge them with a crime if they don't like the answer. If my answer may result in helping a criminal prosecution against me, I have a perfect right not to answer, even if the answer, in my situation, isn't the one that would incriminate me. (As being required to prove the answer would personally incriminate you would, duh, require incriminating yourself.) What's more, I have the right to an attorney to decide if the answer would incrimi
'Shopkeeper's Priviledge' is just a subset of 'citizen's arrest'. Citizens are allowed to detain anyone they see committing a crime. They must actually witness the crime themselves. (Shopkeepers priviledge might actually allow one person to witness it and a group of people who did not personally witness it detain that person on that person's word, which is often not normally allowed in a citizen's arrest, but it's the same basic concept.)
Most stores have a policy that the person must be continually observed, but that doesn't, strictly, appear to be required according to the law, but merely a way to avoid legal liability and PR. But they must actually see you appear to conceal something, and then not pay for it as you leave the store, and then they can execute a 'citizen's arrest' because they, in good faith, believe you just committed the crime of theft. Notice it's not only the store that can do this...any other random shopper could do it, the arrestor doesn't have to be the victim of the crime. (Boy would the store be confused there.)
In this case, it almost completely doesn't apply, because a) They didn't witness a crime, and b) he wasn't charged with the crime they didn't witness, he was basically charged with failing to show his driver's license. Even if the store had the legal right to detain him, which they almost certainly didn't, that still doesn't mean the police can charge him with a made-up crime. Even if he was utterly wrong and the store did have the right to detain him, he was, in fact, still there, so clearly hadn't broken any laws by 'escaping'.
Here's an interesting question: Did the officer ask for the store employees driver licenses? After all, they were the people clearly committing the act of kidnapping, and the other person was the one who called the police on them.
Maybe there should be a euphanism for "priva-libs" like neo-cons and then plain old conservatives
There is.
It's 'liberal'.
I'd like to go ahead and admit that I'm one of these people. Unfortunately, the Republicans now are starting not to follow through on the fiscal conservatism.
How old are you? Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II account for 70% of the national debt. Nixon and Ford vastly increased social security, and doubled the national deficit from 6% to 13%. Eisenhower built an interstate highway system and launched the space race. Hoover was elected as part of the Progressive Movement, proposing Federal Dept. of Education and pensions for the elderly, and was a Republican in name only. What Republican are you talking about, Calvin fucking Coolidge?
The meme that Republicans are fiscally conservative has, thank God, been destroyed recently, but now we've got this absurd meme that they used it be. Can someone please point to a single shred of evidence that this has ever been true?
The Democrats, in all aspects of spending, have been more restrained than the Republicans for more than 80 years. Look it up. Pick any standard of government spending or growth that you want. And when the Democrats do add programs they are hugely popular ones, which, this being a democracy, should be a little relevant. The Republican, however, stopped adding 'useful' programs with Nixon, and started, instead, completely surreal handouts to large corporations.
What the Republicans are (Somewhat recently starting with Reagan, and, to a less extent, Nixon.) restrained at is taxation. They spend the money they don't have just fine, on things people don't want.
But, hey, maybe you are old enough to remember Calvin Coolidge and thus don't care about the fact we're going to be paying off Republican handouts for the next fifty years.
In fact, you can be a libertarian communist. Someone who thinks communism will magically work so well that you won't really need the government except to keep order, and everyone will just decide to be communists. I believe this is currently called 'anarcho-socialism', but it makes as much sense to call it 'libertarian communism'. (Or, at least, going 90% of the way to 'anarcho-socialism' would be called that.)
It's not really any wackier than libertarian capitalism, the idea that capitalism will work so well you won't really need the government except to keep order, which is what current libertarians think. In fact, under that model, some socialism is already assumed, like people providing for the elderly out of the goodness of their heart.
There's not actually, logically, any reason to distinguish the two. Implement libertarianism and either one will happen, or the other will happen, or some combination of both.
Or, alternately, powerful people will take over large amounts of property (Probably people who already own them) and run roughshed over everyone else, which is the more likely of outcomes. Libertarian feudalism seems a good name to me.
Al Gore is not, in fact, running.
If you want someone who know what's going on, go with Edwards. The GOP is scared shitless of his message. Don't believe the attempts to paint him as a 'hypocrit' for having investments, or the insane attempt to paint his makeup costs so he looks good on TV as excessive...everyone spends that much.
As for Ron Paul, he's the only Republican that could possibly win in a general election. But there's no way in hell the GOP will nominate him.
Those rights are almost always phrased as a social right, which could just as easily mean, and the polls tend to bear this out, that slashdot readers are socially 'liberal' in the classical sense.
But when talking about corporations, slashdot readers are almost always opposed to large ones that have power (So much that, for example, the fact that people tend, hypocritically, to not critize Apple has been pointed out.), which isn't libertarian at all. It is, however, fairly 'progressive'.
The evidence is that slashdot readers tend towards the left, the current mish-mash of liberal ideas for the individual but the progressive ideas of the government trying to fix manage corporations, not 'libertarianism'.
OTOH, it's entirely possibly, based on the apparent lack of knowledge of libertarianism experienced in this debate, that those same readers think they're libertarians in some manner.
How the hell do you know who's polluting?
I suppose one of those magical free-market certification people will spring up and go around testing everyone to pays a fee to display a sticker? Yeah, that's incredibly likely.
No shit. I've seen at least two entirely separate people, reading on only this far in the page, that assert libertarians would fucking provide national health care. What the hell?
The fundamental difference between government and private is that the government has a monopoly on the use of physical force (if a person or group in the private sector initiates the use of physical force, they are committing a crime).
Private corporations do have the ability to use force. Try not paying your rent and refusing to leave your house and see how well that works out.
What, those are police officers throwing you out? Well, thank goodness the libertarians will do something about that...oh, wait, no they won't.
The fact that the state is the enforcer of private property rights doesn't mean jack-shit if you are going to leave those rights intact.
And, before someone misunderstands, I'm not calling to do anything to those rights, I'm pointing that a very very large portion of corporate abuse of people is by using property rights, which are, in actual fact, backed up by threat of force. The fact the physical agents of this force are the government is meaningless to this argument unless libertarians are planning to change this when they take power from the government.
Why some people consider it a good idea to give the more powerful entity even more power in other to control the less powerful entity is something I will never understand.
BECAUSE WE CONTROL THE GOVERNMENT, AND WE DON'T CONTROL CORPORATIONS.
Um, duh.
As I have ranted about elsewhere, but not here, I really wish the Republicans would get back to 'small business' Forget all this race-baiting thousand-year-war-on-terror all-liberals-are-evil bullcrap. I really really wish the Republicans would run on solely their 'small government' policies.
I tell this to people, and they assume I'm a disgruntled Republican. Hell no. Anyone who ran, anyone who has ran, solely on cutting social security and against national security and against regulating food and businesses, would lose, and lose incredibly badly.
If people want to know why the GOP seems to be a fairly random collection of people with nothing in common except extreme dislike of something or someone, it's because their supposed platform is, honestly, supported by no one, so they are forced to 'improvise'.
The government seems to run fine when people who believe in government run it. It's when Republicans that don't believe in it run it that it mysteriously seems to develop problems.
Exactly. This is one of those slippery-slope things. It seems reasonable, but, in the end, all data humanity knows was in physical form at some time or another, and could have been preserved at that point.
Then that's the arguments they need to make in court, not 'We don't have a record of the data'.
And, incidentally, it probably wouldn't work. Just logging the data to the same hard drive might not work, but no one is making them do that. They can send it to another drive, they can log it over the network to somewhere else using NFS, etc. If they are truly unable to log the data without the system breaking, they can explain that and ask that the court provide some sort of packet-sniffing computer to just watch the incoming connections and record the IPs.
There are 'hardship' arguments that can be made in response to discovery orders, but those never result in the discovery not happening. Sometimes it reduces the size of discovery to start with, and requires further requests be made for more data. Sometimes it results in copies being required instead of originals. Sometimes it requires the opposing side to pay for the equipment.
But it doesn't result in a 'win' for the people who don't want the discovery, and the court looks very poorly on people who claim hardship to try to avoid discovery instead of having legit needs, which is what I suspect would be going on here, because logging IPs isn't particularly difficult or CPU intensive.
Of course, they haven't made that argument, so it's an entirely moot point.
Yeah! Just like if someone were to demand a copy of all my correspondence with my bank, I'd have to photocopy every book I own! If only courts had come, hundreds of years ago, with some sort of concept of demanding all X instead of demanding everything the other person possesses.
Oh, wait, they did.
Just because the court has ruled that everything passing through memory is already 'recorded' doesn't mean that everything passing through memory is part of the discovery order. The discovery order requires all IP connecting to the tracker to be turned over, not 'everything that's ever been recorded by the computer'.
Does no one here understand even vaguely how courts operate?
And, yes, the amount of data is already considered during discovery. Both to limit irrelevant data, and to limit the sheer demand: For example, if for some legal reason it was important to know which books I had read, I would end up having to turn over the titles, not photocopies, and the opposing side would have to explicitly demand photocopies of books they wanted, and would have to pay for the cost past a certain amount.
Likewise, if someone demanded the contents of someone's entire memory at all times, a demand that is unlikely to ever be fulfilled, but if they did and it was, they themselves would have to figure out some way of recording that and provide something to record it to.
s/Microsoft just doing business/Microsoft attempting to continue to threaten free software with accusations of patent violation/
Fixed that for you.
Right. Basically, discovery can require you to turn over information you have, but can't require you to turn over information you just know.
Like, if you know a person's name, they can't make you turn that over in discovery, but if you happen to have it written down, they can require 'all documents that refer to John Doe'. (Whether or not they can make you tell them something in your head at all is a long and complicated legal question, but they can't do it via simple discovery.)
They tried to argue that, just like no discovery can say 'You are now required to transcribe all converstations with someone', it can't say 'You are now required to record all IPs'. That if people were already making transcriptions, yes, the court could order them handed over, but they are not making any.
The court said 'No, a closer analogy is that you're transcribing them on self-destructing paper, and we can make you use regular paper and hand them over. We can't stop you from stopping to record them entirely, but as long as they're in memory, you have already actually recorded them in a legal sense. They are physically represented in property of yours.'.
I know how people want this case to go, but it seems that is a pretty reasonable legal argument at this point. OTOH, it could be used to argue that people are legally required to tap their own phone and hand it over if someone has a discovery order requiring all 'voice recordings' to be handed over and something in the phone connection buffers in memory.
That sounds like a job for SELinux. Lock the system down so hard it doesn't allow root logins at all, and logins under the id that the servers are running under. Have all that become enabled, say, five minutes after boot, or that it starts enabled and must be disabled from the boot command line during boot.
Make sure the system responds with an error message that explains all this if you try to login as one of the protected accounts...that to login you have to reboot the server.
$1.50 above the old minimum wage of $5.15 an hour. As in, about $6.50, maybe $7 an hour if you're lucky. I don't know if it's gone up now that new minimum wage is, at this moment, $5.85.
I don't know where you got $7.50 an hour, or the apparently $9 an hour you think Walmart pays. Maybe it does pay that in some places.
I think I explained when they tend to be right and wrong: When they're attacking concepts, they're almost entirely on the right side. When they start attacking implimentations, instead of the concept they claim to be attacking, you know they're in the wrong but won't admit it.
Like with the ADA thing. Their premise what was the ADA didn't really help people.
As evidence of this...they presented no evidence of it. Instead, they showed an entire town that some lawyer had sued at once for violating the ADA, despite the fact almost ever shop there was completely in complience. That's not a failure of the ADA, that's the failure of a fucked up court system that doesn't require people filing frivolous lawsuits to pay damages.
And they also demonstrated that the definition of 'handicapped' was almost meaningless and lots of people could get stickers who, logically, wouldn't need them...but they failed to demonstrate this actually happened.
And then, they, as a joke, demonstrated that even places that followed all the rules couldn't handle someone in an iron lung, of which there are about a dozen people in the US. That was hilarious, but not actually that relevant.
Oh, and they whined about how much space handicapped parking spaces took up.
There were two valid objections they came up with. One is that it requiring all sorts of existing businesses to put handicapped ramps in was a large hardship, and asking people to do all that work for free was wrong. But, um...that already happened. It's over. Yes, new buildings need to follow the ADA, but it's trivial to make sure a new building follows the rules, just like it has to follow every other building code.
And the other was that some businesses might be failing to hired handicapped people because they are scared of the ADA, scared that, in some way, they might fall short, and thus the business will get sued. An interesting and valid point, and one I wish they'd expanded on, but apparently not.
You can call it 'bias' if you want, but it's not. They'd made some good points I don't agree with on a lot of topics, including government regulations. But every once in a while you can tell they're stretching, and calling 'Bullshit' on something that is mostly a good idea, and they have to run around finding outliers to point at.
Actually, a really good way to tell is to see if they have some person who represents the opposite side, the side of bullshit, and sounds like a complete moron. If they do, it's a good bet they're making a valid point. If they don't, if the only people they can locate to dispute them appear to be sane advocates, than they're probably stretching it.