China would be entirely happy if North Korea vanished tomorrow. I have no idea why anyone even entertains the possiblity they might step up to bat for it.
Actually, a good portion of the USSR's power late in the Cold War came from the fact they started acting like lunatics, because that was their only position of power. But they, at least, were only acting.
I suspect Iran is the same way. They're using the fututre apocalypces as a PR gimmick. If they actually wanted a full war with the US, they'd have invaded Iraq in force.
There is only two irrational actors in today's geopolitical world with nukes. One of them is pretty much contained by China, and there and South Korea would be the only places his missiles could attack. He's somewhat crazy, but he's not going to attack anyone because it wouldn't help him at all.
However, the other irrational actor is an extremist trying to take over the world, but has lost so much of the trust of military with his random unfunded excursions that there would be a coup if he attempted to launch ICBMs at anyone. It's even possible there'd be one if he started just dropping nukes on Iran as he's threatened, or even ordered an invasion of Iran. (Although a ground invasion of Iran wouldn't hurt anyone except the invading soldiers as Iran wiped them off the map.)
No shit. China attacking the US is like getting pissed at your tenants and coming by and blowing up the block of apartments they live in.
If China wanted to fuck with us, they don't need any sort of weapons at all. They just need to call in their loans, and our entire economy would collapse.
There's a science fiction story set in post-apocalyptic US, where the premise is that the US's launch system, for some reason, 'failed'. As the story progresses, we learn it didn't fail...the Soviets launched a full out attack on the US, and the US didn't launch back, because there wouldn't be a point. The nuclear winter was going to kill half the planet anyway, and not nuking Russia gave humanity some chance.
And what gives them the right under copyright law to make money by violating the rights of people who break rules?
Do I have the permission to punch people who calmly stroll down the left side of a busy hall while everyone else is walking on the right, thus completely disrupting traffic? Do I have permission to burn down the house of someone who refuses to rake his leaves? Do I have permission to kidnap on someone who wears white after labor day?
When did someone breaking rules, written or otherwise, become permission for a random person to break an actual law, and harm, the first person? Hell, someone else breaking the law doesn't even give you that right, except the few limited 'citizen's arrest' circumstances, which only lets you temporarily kidnap them if you observe them breaking the law.
Your example is much more like setting a beartrap in your house while you're on vacation, on the logic that only burglars would get harmed, and that's so blatantly illegal you'll get charged with assault just for setting it, even if no one actually gets hurt by it. (Actually, it's quite not like that, as burglary is, at least, illegal, whereas cheating is just something people find distasteful.)
There is NO excuse for copyright infringement, period.
That's right, there's no excuse for copyright infringement, period. Murder, yes, in self-defense, but copyright infringement? Hell no!
If someone walks up to you and threatens to kill you unless you sing 'Happy Birthday', at least you'll die knowing there is never any excuse whatsoever to violate copyright.
At the extreme end of proactive cheaters, there are people who are convinced they're cheating, but are not actually dong so, because they're rewriting so much they actually just wrote the paper. They're probably poorly citing, but are well within the actual honor code.
Incidentally, I've seen people copy off people on a multiple choice math test, and then do the work because they had to show their work, and then check the answer. It's sorta like...WTF?
All it does is stop her friends from turning it in as their own work.
Which is perfectly legal action on her part, BTW. If she wishes to give away, or resell, any work of hers with the express idea that the receipient will turn it is as their own work, that is perfectly legal under copyright law.
You don't have to come up with some 'moral' example, just a legal one, to win a court case. The illegally-copied work has been devalued by the copying.
Although it would be best if you'd actually graduate high school before making the assertation that you wish to sell your papers to others, but can no longer, and thus should be able to recoup damages, as doing that is probably against the honor code.
What about reselling the paper to some other student to turn as their own work? They're pretty much destroyed any value the paper might have had in that field because of their copyright infringement of said paper. And they did that on purpose. That is their whole stated purpose.
They've chosen to prevent something immoral, but legal, by doing something illegal, which is spectaularly stupid.
You need to cite facts from your previous papers, although it's a lot simplier just to cite the same damn things you did the first time. (Anyone else's paper, you'd have to check the cites to see if they were correct, but, duh, hopefully you know they are.)
You do not need to cite a conclusion you have come to before, even if you're already stated that conclusion in some other paper.
I'd like to see them actually demonstrate I copied a conclusion from another of my papers as opposed to coming to it independently twice. For all they know, I forgot I concluded that, or I concluded that when I was 10 and thus, in essense, always thought that and can't cite any origin for it.
Seriously, they might want to have a rule against reusing papers, and such a rule is fine. It is not, however, fucking plagiarism. Plagiarism is very very clearly defined as using other people's ideas and conclusions without giving them credit. Other people's. You don't have to credit your own ideas, or, if you do, you did at the top of the paper when you put your name on it.
This doesn't pass the laugh test, sorry. Any judge would dismiss this with prejudice. As the original poster stated, the student's ability to publish her own work for profit has been in no way diminished. That is exactly what copyright laws are intended to protect.
What the fuck are you talking about? Sure it has been diminished.
Let's say I write a paper and have turned it in. Let's say I know someone who has to write a near identical paper, in another state.
Without this system, I could sell them a copy of mine. With it, I cannot. The value of my paper has gone down.
Yes, I wanted to do something probably immoral and certainly against carious rules, but it isn't illegal. Turnitin, however, had managed to get an illegal made copy of my copyrighted work, and used it to reduce the value of it.
It is exactly analogist, under copyright law, of an industry expert writing a report on the future of the electronic industry and hiring someone to proofread it, and then trying to sell it to someone else, but discovering the report is on the internet and everyone's read it, thanks to the proofreader stealing it. Morally it's an entirely different thing, but you don't get to break copyright and destroy the value of other people's works because you don't like them being sold.
It is flatly utterly impossible to plagerize yourself, and any teacher who uses the phrase 'self-plagerism' should have to resign. Plagerism is copying ideas without citing the source. If all external ideas and facts are cited, you have not plagerized, no matter when you came up with the ideas you came up with, or whether you're written them down previously. (In fact, any paper is going to be a combination of ideas you already had, ideas you had while doing research, and other people's ideas that you agree with. You only have to cite the later.)
Although a funnier gag might have been for your friend to say 'Oh my god, I'm so sorry!' and add a single citation to her paper citing her previous, identical, paper, and randomly strew (Me 2001) throughout. I'd like to see any sort of logical objection to that. Hey, she did read that paper, and it was on an identical topic, and had lots of ideas she used, it's only right to cite it.
The problem there is that you're in violation of the ethics code in those cases, so unless you're planning on getting kicked out of school when you sue them, not a great idea.
But if you see a case where it's okay to copy, go ahead. For example, you could turn the same paper in twice(1). Or you could always cite his paper.;) Yeah, it probably wouldn't be allowed as a required source, but teachers don't mind people citing more sourses than required. (You could always say that you read his paper before getting the assignment, and some ideas stuck, so you had to cite him or it would be dishonest.)
Or, heh, you could write a nice paper on some topic you knew was coming up in some later year (Yes, some teachers are that predictable), have a notery date it, and then sell it to one of those paper reselling places. Then turn it in later, hoping someone bought it and already turned it in. That might violate the honor code, though, so instead give it to some friend who isn't in school, and let him resell it. (Which is technically violating your copyright, but as this is a scam, you can just assure him you won't sue.)
The weirdness here is copyright law and scholastic ethics code interacting oddly.
1) That introduces a weird problem. What if, say, I turn a paper in high school for AP prep, and my high school doesn't use this thingy. Some other kid copies it, and turns it in at some place that does use this service. (Maybe the school just started, or maybe it's another school.) Then, I go to college, and, ha, get assigned almost exactly the same paper. So I haul out my old research, check for new developments, retype almost the same paper, and turn it in. If their software is any good, it really should detect plagerism with that other kid, if the cites, the topic, the ideas are all the same...but obviously plagerizing yourself is allowed under honor codes.
Not that I'm entirely sure it can detect plagerism...maybe it's just detecting 'copying'. I suspect students grabbing a web page and rewriting happens more than getting a literal copy of another kid's paper, because that's what people always did when I was in high school. (Except it was an encyclopedia, not a web page.) Maybe it's changed, though.
The one downside would be the inability to prove that a match isn't a false positive...
While there are other downsides, that one right there is why they can't do that.
Can you imagine how that would work? 'Hey, this computer says you copied a paper from someone at Some Other High School written in 2003. You fail.' 'Let me see this other paper.' 'I'm sorry, no one has a copy of it.' 'Hello, local news? Yeah, interesting story for you how a teacher is flunking me for copying a paper, and his only evidence is that a computer says, mathmatically, it's close to some other paper that no one has a copy of.'
Seriously. A computer that spits out 'This paper is a copy of something, but I can't show you what?'. How the hell long do you think that would last?
That's idiotic. Why? Because turning in a paper doesn'ty give anyone a 'implied' license to copy it in any way.
Teachers don't make copies of work when grading them. Um, duh. They don't need any sort of 'license' to mark up a piece of paper that's been handed to them.
Hell, legally, they can make a copy and hand back the copy, just like if someone hands me a CD of their own music, I can burn a copy and give it back to them. In a technical sense, it's copyright infringement, but as they're distributing the copy back to the actual copyright holder, there are no damages.
And as someone who's been out of high school almost a decade, and who never cheated on any paper (Or anything else, really.), I would be up in arms if one of my classes had decided to turn copies of all of my papers over to some third party for any reason. That is completely unacceptable behavior for a school.
I probably wouldn't care about some 'paper library' that teachers could say 'Hey, didn't I see this paper before?' and go and look it up. Or even a computerized version of it that did it automatically, or even some statewide thing.
But when they bring in a third-party that's making money from it...no, I'm sorry, they've crossed the line. They want to take my paper and make money from it by any means, they can damn well pay me for that. It's not just a copyright violation, it's an scholastic ethical violation.
Um, not post-9/11. Now everyone collects IDs. Shoot, I had to bring my drivers license/ID and my SSN card to work when we switched to a new HR company (we outsource our HR) because otherwise they couldn't prove that I was allowed to work in the US, and they stated (and as far as I've been able to research it's true) that Homeland Security now requires that all new hires in the US are supposed to check it.
Of course you had to bring your SSN card to prove you could work in the US. Duh. All employers are required by law to know your SSN, or the equivilent number they give legal aliens that I can't think of the name of offhand.
If they wanted your license too, that was up to them.
Um, all banks require IDs, they have for as long as I can remember (I'm almost 30). Even just to cash a check, as banks want to know if you have an account there. It used to be that you could go to the issuing bank, but many banks now (like Wells Fargo and USBank) now say that you can't cash those without an account at most branches.
And again you've changed 'government issued photo ID' to merely 'ID'. I know all banks require ID. They do not all required government issued photo ID.
I've cashed a check at the bank it was written on using my student ID, my social security card, and my thumbprint, after 9/11. (And, do that every week at the same bank, and they'll learn who you are and stop checking any ID.) I did actually have a license, but I leave that in my car ever since the courts said the police have the right to demand you produce it while you're walking down the street. (The simplest solutions are the best.)
Actually, the IRS requires it for all new account openings. And yes, they do want SSNs and government-issued IDs, employment IDs are useless.
At no point have I ever vaguely hints that banks don't want SSNs. Of course they want SSNs. That, and some sort of identifaction, will get you a bank account.
I think some people here have no idea how the poor operate. The poor do not have government issued photo IDs. The census tells us how many people there are in a city, as does the phone book, and the DMV tells us how many do not have licenses or IDs, and there are plenty of them. It's not some sort of debatable question.
It's akin to arguing that airplanes can't fly because they're so heavy. Well, that's an incredibly stupid arguement, because they do, in fact, fly. It doesn't matter if you don't understand how.
They have bank accounts, they have credit cards (and usually shouldn't), they have jobs, they cash checks. They do not have government photo IDs. You can argue that this is somehow 'impossible', but as it is actually true, you just sound like a lunatic.
And I'm ending this discussion right now, because it's just stupid. The poor, quite often, factually, do not have government photo IDs. You feel free to figure out how they manage to exist in such a manner with someone else, because I don't give a shit about trying to explain it, because it's not fucking important to the discussion of how photo IDs are a poll tax.
You are right, using electronic voting invites fraud, but allowing people to vote without showing ID is just being fair to underpriveleged people (who can get a state ID for free under hardship condtions)
Yes, if they can waste hours in line at the DMV and if they actually bring the paperwork to show they have hardship conditions, like anyone knows what the DMV will accept for that in advance.
'Hardship', in the legal sense, is pretty much limited to actual external problems, like someone having to quit their job to care for their mother or suffering a disability. Being merely poor is not a 'hardship' and someone working a minimum wage job is not suffering 'hardship', but having to spend half a day off work and three hours worth of minimum wage pay to get an ID is certainly a disincentive to voting.
Pretending there's not a huge range of people that would have to decide 'Get ID to vote, or pay the phone bill from two months ago?' is just dishonest. You have noticed the 'Get your phone reconnected for local service' ads that are designed for people who couldn't pay their phone bills, right?
And, of course, someone is going to have to point out where a poll tax is constitional if it's waived for poor people, even assuming it was. Like I said, I had my license taken away for six months, and I'd like some legal justification making me pay 15 dollars to vote, even though I could afford it. Voting is a right, I don't have to pay to do it.
I mean, what if we had a 10,000 poll tax, but only applied it to people making 50,000 or so? Would that be okay? Of course not.
Completely wrong. I've actually gotten a job without possessing photo ID when my license was suspended.
cash checks (and even if you are poor, welfare checks, other government assistance)
Wrong, unless you're stupid and cash your checks at non-banks. The first time you'll need someone to confirm your identity.
open a bank account
Usually wrong. A few banks want it, but they will accept employment IDs or an employee reference.
I don't know how anybody could not have an ID unless it was a matter of purposefully not wanting one. I mean, when you are born, you get a birth certificate (which I believe is enough to prove ID under the proposed law)
Jesus Christ. You know nothing about this issue, do you?
The photo ID laws people are objecting to require government issued photo IDs. Those things you have to go to the DMV and stand in line for two hours to get? The things they charge 15 bucks for?
And, incidentally, not everyone has or can easily get a copy of their birth certificate, like for example black people born before the 1960s in some parts of the South, and copies always cost money.
It also means all the warm water will be happily staying off the east coast of the US. And, as we all know, warm water off the east coast of the means...anyone?
Yup. Hurricanes. Lots and lots and lots and lots of hurricanes.
Slashdot Mirror
China would be entirely happy if North Korea vanished tomorrow. I have no idea why anyone even entertains the possiblity they might step up to bat for it.
Actually, a good portion of the USSR's power late in the Cold War came from the fact they started acting like lunatics, because that was their only position of power. But they, at least, were only acting.
I suspect Iran is the same way. They're using the fututre apocalypces as a PR gimmick. If they actually wanted a full war with the US, they'd have invaded Iraq in force.
There is only two irrational actors in today's geopolitical world with nukes. One of them is pretty much contained by China, and there and South Korea would be the only places his missiles could attack. He's somewhat crazy, but he's not going to attack anyone because it wouldn't help him at all.
However, the other irrational actor is an extremist trying to take over the world, but has lost so much of the trust of military with his random unfunded excursions that there would be a coup if he attempted to launch ICBMs at anyone. It's even possible there'd be one if he started just dropping nukes on Iran as he's threatened, or even ordered an invasion of Iran. (Although a ground invasion of Iran wouldn't hurt anyone except the invading soldiers as Iran wiped them off the map.)
No shit. China attacking the US is like getting pissed at your tenants and coming by and blowing up the block of apartments they live in.
If China wanted to fuck with us, they don't need any sort of weapons at all. They just need to call in their loans, and our entire economy would collapse.
There's a science fiction story set in post-apocalyptic US, where the premise is that the US's launch system, for some reason, 'failed'. As the story progresses, we learn it didn't fail...the Soviets launched a full out attack on the US, and the US didn't launch back, because there wouldn't be a point. The nuclear winter was going to kill half the planet anyway, and not nuking Russia gave humanity some chance.
And what gives them the right under copyright law to make money by violating the rights of people who break rules?
Do I have the permission to punch people who calmly stroll down the left side of a busy hall while everyone else is walking on the right, thus completely disrupting traffic? Do I have permission to burn down the house of someone who refuses to rake his leaves? Do I have permission to kidnap on someone who wears white after labor day?
When did someone breaking rules, written or otherwise, become permission for a random person to break an actual law, and harm, the first person? Hell, someone else breaking the law doesn't even give you that right, except the few limited 'citizen's arrest' circumstances, which only lets you temporarily kidnap them if you observe them breaking the law.
Your example is much more like setting a beartrap in your house while you're on vacation, on the logic that only burglars would get harmed, and that's so blatantly illegal you'll get charged with assault just for setting it, even if no one actually gets hurt by it. (Actually, it's quite not like that, as burglary is, at least, illegal, whereas cheating is just something people find distasteful.)
There is NO excuse for copyright infringement, period.
That's right, there's no excuse for copyright infringement, period. Murder, yes, in self-defense, but copyright infringement? Hell no!
If someone walks up to you and threatens to kill you unless you sing 'Happy Birthday', at least you'll die knowing there is never any excuse whatsoever to violate copyright.
At the extreme end of proactive cheaters, there are people who are convinced they're cheating, but are not actually dong so, because they're rewriting so much they actually just wrote the paper. They're probably poorly citing, but are well within the actual honor code.
Incidentally, I've seen people copy off people on a multiple choice math test, and then do the work because they had to show their work, and then check the answer. It's sorta like...WTF?
All it does is stop her friends from turning it in as their own work.
Which is perfectly legal action on her part, BTW. If she wishes to give away, or resell, any work of hers with the express idea that the receipient will turn it is as their own work, that is perfectly legal under copyright law.
You don't have to come up with some 'moral' example, just a legal one, to win a court case. The illegally-copied work has been devalued by the copying.
Although it would be best if you'd actually graduate high school before making the assertation that you wish to sell your papers to others, but can no longer, and thus should be able to recoup damages, as doing that is probably against the honor code.
Pffft. Admit it. You copied that biography word for word from the titles and authors of books and other references, didn't you?
What about reselling the paper to some other student to turn as their own work? They're pretty much destroyed any value the paper might have had in that field because of their copyright infringement of said paper. And they did that on purpose. That is their whole stated purpose.
They've chosen to prevent something immoral, but legal, by doing something illegal, which is spectaularly stupid.
You need to cite facts from your previous papers, although it's a lot simplier just to cite the same damn things you did the first time. (Anyone else's paper, you'd have to check the cites to see if they were correct, but, duh, hopefully you know they are.)
You do not need to cite a conclusion you have come to before, even if you're already stated that conclusion in some other paper.
I'd like to see them actually demonstrate I copied a conclusion from another of my papers as opposed to coming to it independently twice. For all they know, I forgot I concluded that, or I concluded that when I was 10 and thus, in essense, always thought that and can't cite any origin for it.
Seriously, they might want to have a rule against reusing papers, and such a rule is fine. It is not, however, fucking plagiarism. Plagiarism is very very clearly defined as using other people's ideas and conclusions without giving them credit. Other people's. You don't have to credit your own ideas, or, if you do, you did at the top of the paper when you put your name on it.
Students can't agree to contracts if they're minors, nor can they agree to them if they're at public schools and it's required.
This doesn't pass the laugh test, sorry. Any judge would dismiss this with prejudice. As the original poster stated, the student's ability to publish her own work for profit has been in no way diminished. That is exactly what copyright laws are intended to protect.
What the fuck are you talking about? Sure it has been diminished.
Let's say I write a paper and have turned it in. Let's say I know someone who has to write a near identical paper, in another state.
Without this system, I could sell them a copy of mine. With it, I cannot. The value of my paper has gone down.
Yes, I wanted to do something probably immoral and certainly against carious rules, but it isn't illegal. Turnitin, however, had managed to get an illegal made copy of my copyrighted work, and used it to reduce the value of it.
It is exactly analogist, under copyright law, of an industry expert writing a report on the future of the electronic industry and hiring someone to proofread it, and then trying to sell it to someone else, but discovering the report is on the internet and everyone's read it, thanks to the proofreader stealing it. Morally it's an entirely different thing, but you don't get to break copyright and destroy the value of other people's works because you don't like them being sold.
It is flatly utterly impossible to plagerize yourself, and any teacher who uses the phrase 'self-plagerism' should have to resign. Plagerism is copying ideas without citing the source. If all external ideas and facts are cited, you have not plagerized, no matter when you came up with the ideas you came up with, or whether you're written them down previously. (In fact, any paper is going to be a combination of ideas you already had, ideas you had while doing research, and other people's ideas that you agree with. You only have to cite the later.)
Although a funnier gag might have been for your friend to say 'Oh my god, I'm so sorry!' and add a single citation to her paper citing her previous, identical, paper, and randomly strew (Me 2001) throughout. I'd like to see any sort of logical objection to that. Hey, she did read that paper, and it was on an identical topic, and had lots of ideas she used, it's only right to cite it.
The problem there is that you're in violation of the ethics code in those cases, so unless you're planning on getting kicked out of school when you sue them, not a great idea.
But if you see a case where it's okay to copy, go ahead. For example, you could turn the same paper in twice(1). Or you could always cite his paper. ;) Yeah, it probably wouldn't be allowed as a required source, but teachers don't mind people citing more sourses than required. (You could always say that you read his paper before getting the assignment, and some ideas stuck, so you had to cite him or it would be dishonest.)
Or, heh, you could write a nice paper on some topic you knew was coming up in some later year (Yes, some teachers are that predictable), have a notery date it, and then sell it to one of those paper reselling places. Then turn it in later, hoping someone bought it and already turned it in. That might violate the honor code, though, so instead give it to some friend who isn't in school, and let him resell it. (Which is technically violating your copyright, but as this is a scam, you can just assure him you won't sue.)
The weirdness here is copyright law and scholastic ethics code interacting oddly.
1) That introduces a weird problem. What if, say, I turn a paper in high school for AP prep, and my high school doesn't use this thingy. Some other kid copies it, and turns it in at some place that does use this service. (Maybe the school just started, or maybe it's another school.) Then, I go to college, and, ha, get assigned almost exactly the same paper. So I haul out my old research, check for new developments, retype almost the same paper, and turn it in. If their software is any good, it really should detect plagerism with that other kid, if the cites, the topic, the ideas are all the same...but obviously plagerizing yourself is allowed under honor codes.
Not that I'm entirely sure it can detect plagerism...maybe it's just detecting 'copying'. I suspect students grabbing a web page and rewriting happens more than getting a literal copy of another kid's paper, because that's what people always did when I was in high school. (Except it was an encyclopedia, not a web page.) Maybe it's changed, though.
non-profit purposes
Just how dense do you have to be to claim that a company charging to compare files to your work is 'non-profit'?
The one downside would be the inability to prove that a match isn't a false positive...
While there are other downsides, that one right there is why they can't do that.
Can you imagine how that would work? 'Hey, this computer says you copied a paper from someone at Some Other High School written in 2003. You fail.' 'Let me see this other paper.' 'I'm sorry, no one has a copy of it.' 'Hello, local news? Yeah, interesting story for you how a teacher is flunking me for copying a paper, and his only evidence is that a computer says, mathmatically, it's close to some other paper that no one has a copy of.'
Seriously. A computer that spits out 'This paper is a copy of something, but I can't show you what?'. How the hell long do you think that would last?
That's idiotic. Why? Because turning in a paper doesn'ty give anyone a 'implied' license to copy it in any way.
Teachers don't make copies of work when grading them. Um, duh. They don't need any sort of 'license' to mark up a piece of paper that's been handed to them.
Hell, legally, they can make a copy and hand back the copy, just like if someone hands me a CD of their own music, I can burn a copy and give it back to them. In a technical sense, it's copyright infringement, but as they're distributing the copy back to the actual copyright holder, there are no damages.
And as someone who's been out of high school almost a decade, and who never cheated on any paper (Or anything else, really.), I would be up in arms if one of my classes had decided to turn copies of all of my papers over to some third party for any reason. That is completely unacceptable behavior for a school.
I probably wouldn't care about some 'paper library' that teachers could say 'Hey, didn't I see this paper before?' and go and look it up. Or even a computerized version of it that did it automatically, or even some statewide thing.
But when they bring in a third-party that's making money from it...no, I'm sorry, they've crossed the line. They want to take my paper and make money from it by any means, they can damn well pay me for that. It's not just a copyright violation, it's an scholastic ethical violation.
Who the fuck fails exams?
Um, not post-9/11. Now everyone collects IDs. Shoot, I had to bring my drivers license/ID and my SSN card to work when we switched to a new HR company (we outsource our HR) because otherwise they couldn't prove that I was allowed to work in the US, and they stated (and as far as I've been able to research it's true) that Homeland Security now requires that all new hires in the US are supposed to check it.
Of course you had to bring your SSN card to prove you could work in the US. Duh. All employers are required by law to know your SSN, or the equivilent number they give legal aliens that I can't think of the name of offhand.
If they wanted your license too, that was up to them.
Um, all banks require IDs, they have for as long as I can remember (I'm almost 30). Even just to cash a check, as banks want to know if you have an account there. It used to be that you could go to the issuing bank, but many banks now (like Wells Fargo and USBank) now say that you can't cash those without an account at most branches.
And again you've changed 'government issued photo ID' to merely 'ID'. I know all banks require ID. They do not all required government issued photo ID.
I've cashed a check at the bank it was written on using my student ID, my social security card, and my thumbprint, after 9/11. (And, do that every week at the same bank, and they'll learn who you are and stop checking any ID.) I did actually have a license, but I leave that in my car ever since the courts said the police have the right to demand you produce it while you're walking down the street. (The simplest solutions are the best.)
Actually, the IRS requires it for all new account openings. And yes, they do want SSNs and government-issued IDs, employment IDs are useless.
At no point have I ever vaguely hints that banks don't want SSNs. Of course they want SSNs. That, and some sort of identifaction, will get you a bank account.
I think some people here have no idea how the poor operate. The poor do not have government issued photo IDs. The census tells us how many people there are in a city, as does the phone book, and the DMV tells us how many do not have licenses or IDs, and there are plenty of them. It's not some sort of debatable question.
It's akin to arguing that airplanes can't fly because they're so heavy. Well, that's an incredibly stupid arguement, because they do, in fact, fly. It doesn't matter if you don't understand how.
They have bank accounts, they have credit cards (and usually shouldn't), they have jobs, they cash checks. They do not have government photo IDs. You can argue that this is somehow 'impossible', but as it is actually true, you just sound like a lunatic.
And I'm ending this discussion right now, because it's just stupid. The poor, quite often, factually, do not have government photo IDs. You feel free to figure out how they manage to exist in such a manner with someone else, because I don't give a shit about trying to explain it, because it's not fucking important to the discussion of how photo IDs are a poll tax.
You are right, using electronic voting invites fraud, but allowing people to vote without showing ID is just being fair to underpriveleged people (who can get a state ID for free under hardship condtions)
Yes, if they can waste hours in line at the DMV and if they actually bring the paperwork to show they have hardship conditions, like anyone knows what the DMV will accept for that in advance.
'Hardship', in the legal sense, is pretty much limited to actual external problems, like someone having to quit their job to care for their mother or suffering a disability. Being merely poor is not a 'hardship' and someone working a minimum wage job is not suffering 'hardship', but having to spend half a day off work and three hours worth of minimum wage pay to get an ID is certainly a disincentive to voting.
Pretending there's not a huge range of people that would have to decide 'Get ID to vote, or pay the phone bill from two months ago?' is just dishonest. You have noticed the 'Get your phone reconnected for local service' ads that are designed for people who couldn't pay their phone bills, right?
And, of course, someone is going to have to point out where a poll tax is constitional if it's waived for poor people, even assuming it was. Like I said, I had my license taken away for six months, and I'd like some legal justification making me pay 15 dollars to vote, even though I could afford it. Voting is a right, I don't have to pay to do it.
I mean, what if we had a 10,000 poll tax, but only applied it to people making 50,000 or so? Would that be okay? Of course not.
Good Lord. How ignorant.
You need ID as a prerequisite to get a job
Completely wrong. I've actually gotten a job without possessing photo ID when my license was suspended.
cash checks (and even if you are poor, welfare checks, other government assistance)
Wrong, unless you're stupid and cash your checks at non-banks. The first time you'll need someone to confirm your identity.
open a bank account
Usually wrong. A few banks want it, but they will accept employment IDs or an employee reference.
I don't know how anybody could not have an ID unless it was a matter of purposefully not wanting one. I mean, when you are born, you get a birth certificate (which I believe is enough to prove ID under the proposed law)
Jesus Christ. You know nothing about this issue, do you?
The photo ID laws people are objecting to require government issued photo IDs. Those things you have to go to the DMV and stand in line for two hours to get? The things they charge 15 bucks for?
And, incidentally, not everyone has or can easily get a copy of their birth certificate, like for example black people born before the 1960s in some parts of the South, and copies always cost money.
But...but...then the apes won't starve to death!
I guess we can introduce poisonous spiders to kill them.
No, no, he means, there will be less iceburgs eventually. When it all melts.
Just like when you shoot someone, eventually they feel less pain, even though they may feel much more pain for a short amount of time.
It also means all the warm water will be happily staying off the east coast of the US. And, as we all know, warm water off the east coast of the means...anyone?
Yup. Hurricanes. Lots and lots and lots and lots of hurricanes.