So there are two parts to that. A) Federal citizens have the right to vote
Unless denied that right by the state or federal government. Is it a right if it can be abridged by law?
and B) States shall not deny that right based on gender, age, race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Can the government, Federal or State, grant non-citizens suffrage? Yes.
Can the government, Federal or State, remove suffrage from citizens? Yes, as long as they abide by the restrictions of the 15th, 19th and 26th Amendments.
We are a long way from the original topic, which was "What rights does a non-citizen resident have under the constitution?" and the answer is all of them except the right to hold elected office and the "right" to vote. To go even further back on topic, does a non-citizen resident have the right to free movement? And the answer is yes, rights shall not be abridged without due process of law, so until someone has been brought to trial they have the rights associated with being a free person.
Regarding the 6.6% of non-citizens who vote, how many of them are voting legally, that is, how many of them have been granted suffrage by the state in which they reside?
The only right that the US Constitution grants to specifically to citizens is the right to hold elected office. There is no Federal "right to vote" as there are no Federal Elections. Voting is a State issue. The 14th Amendment specifically allows for States to limit the right to vote but requires that the population used to calculate representation be reduced as well. The 15th Amendment says that a State cannot deny voting rights due to "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" and the 19th extends that protection to women, while the 26th extends that protection to all ages 18 and above.
Neither Habeus Corpus nor any of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are limited to citizens.
Even Demore v. Kim acknowledges that "the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process in deportation proceedings"
Thus, it seems that the only right that citizens have that is not granted to others is the right of entry. Once someone is under the jurisdiction of the US they have constitutional rights.
Aside: I don't recall Obama advocating for voting rights for non-citizens, has he done so? -- JimFive
Since Rashid isn't a US citizen, it's questionable what Consititutional rights he has in the US
It's not questionable at all actually. He has all the rights granted by his humanity. Constitutional rights apply to everyone under the jurisdiction of the United States, not just citizens. -- JimFive
Best case, because it's impossible to find the ballot I cast at 7:01 am that morning
Correct.
This isn't correct. At least where I vote you fill out a form with your name and address and the serial number of your (scantron) ballot gets written on the form, so it is possible to dig through the ballots and find the one associated with your name. This might not be possible with electronic voting, however. -- JimFive
Shortly after pay at the pump became common, I was working with a guy who got pulled over after leaving a gas station because the attendant called the cops thinking he hadn't paid. Having a receipt meant that he just showed it to the cop and was on his way. Without the receipt it would have been a much worse experience. -- JimFive
The side that names a number first loses. It is that simple.
Research into the cognitive bias of Anchoring implies that it might be a good idea to be the first side that names a number, just make sure your number is high enough to move their perception of the value of the job without pricing yourself out of their budget. -- JimFive
You seem to have missed the point of this article: THERE WAS NO STUDY.
The "researcher" made up a plausible but obviously flawed study and submitted it to a for-profit "science" journal. After passing the review process (e.g. paying $600) the paper was published and then picked up by news outlets which regurgitated the headline summary without looking at the write up enough to notice that it was flawed. The research here had nothing to do with chocolate. -- JimFive
That depends on how the online copies are handled. I use Crashplan on a drive at a friend's house. It has file versioning and files deleted locally are available on the backup. The backups are encrypted and if I have a total drive failure and I can go get the drive and restore locally instead of over the network.
This does not deal with bare drive restores. My current plan is to not worry about it, if I lose a whole drive I'll do a new install and then restore the data files from the backup. -- JimFive
"Should" is irrelevant. If someone could control the water supply they could charge $1000/gallon and there is no economic requirement not to.
Goods and services do not have an intrinsic value; their value is determined by scarcity and demand. If dish washers are not scarce, their wages are low and they should be low. The idea that labor or products have some intrinsic, absolute value independent of scarcity or demand is common in fascist and Marxist economics, and it simply doesn't work in practice.
I agree with everything here (when I said "actual value" I meant that colloquially as value to the consumer", sorry about the ambiguity) except "...is common is fascist and Marxist economics..." It always seems to be the pro-capitalists that talk about value as independent from demand. In fact, you do it immediately in the next sentence:
the price is determined by the cost of the inputs plus the value the restaurant adds" [emphasis added]
No, the price is determined as the equilibrium between what the customers are willing to pay and what the vendor is willing to accept. The cost puts a floor on what is profitable to the vendor, but that's it.
If one of the inputs (e.g., clean dishes) becomes more expensive, then the customer will just pay for it.
This presumes that the customer is willing to pay more. The value to the customer of the end product hasn't changed so why would this be true? But, yes, if the amount that the vendor is willing to accept changes then a new equilibrium price will be found and that new price may be higher. It could also be lower (especially if the new minimum wage puts more people on the border line of willingness to pay, in this case price discrimination is the key).
Anyway, all I was pointing out is that there are situations at the minimum wage level where the value to the business of getting the job done is higher than the current cost to the business of getting that job done. While businesses may complain about it, they'll pay the higher wage for those jobs.
(Regarding substitution: I assume that most restaurants already have industrial dishwashers, but those dishwashers don't load themselves.) -- JimFive
(While you're at it, also explain why businesses would pay $15/h for a worker who doesn't increase revenue by significantly more than $15 for each hour he works.)
The actual situation may be the opposite of this. Businesses are paying less that $15/h for a worker whose job is worth significantly more than $15 for each hour he works. Why? Because the price (wage of the job) is based on market equilibrium, not the actual value of the end product. Take for example the job of washing dishes in a restaurant. Anybody can do the job but the job is vital to the business. The supply of labor is so high that it is a minimum wage job even though the value to the restaurant of having clean dishes is very high. -- JimFive
I come up with 5:
1, 3, 9, 27, 81
To measure 73 you put 81 + 1 on one side and 9 on the other, etc
That lets you weigh up to 121. These are powers of 3 which is unintuitive to me. I looked briefly at trying to do without a 1, but there seem to be gaps e.g. with 2,3,9 you can't make 13 and you would still need 2 more to get to 100. -- JimFive
I mentioned this in another thread, but other shows like "The Flash" depicts every single fracking woman as a supersmart,[...]
Well, no. The Flash TV show has 2 women. Dr. Caitlin Snow, yes super smart but no more able than Cisco, and Iris West, normal woman reporter, not a supergenius whatsoever. The only other genius woman I recall was the bee robot girl. The female villains do not seem more powerful than the male villains.
In "The Arrow" the only supergenius woman is Felicity and she is also the only person in the world who is not a killing machine. So, your perception of those shows seems a bit off. -- JimFive
(Can anyone tell me what the difference between a Presbyterian and a Methodist is?)
Short, wikipedia based answer: Presbyterian's are Calvinists, while Methodists are Wesleyan-Arminianist. Calvinists believe that "sin so affects human nature that they are unable even to exercise faith in Christ by their own will." thus the only salvation is God's choice to save someone, and that this choice is predestined. Arminian's believe that God gave all men free will to choose to have faith in God and it is this act of choice that brings salvation. -- JimFive
In other words, you're advocating to never forgive them for their mistakes.
Sony Root Kit.
Yes, I am comparing these two things. The problem isn't that they tried a new product that failed, it is that the tried to make a change that deliberately harmed their customers.
I'm just curious what separates legal behavior from illegal behavior
Primarily, intent.
If you regularly drive people places for money then you are operating a business and have to abide by business rules. If you occasionally give your friend a lift and he gives you gas money then you aren't.
It is a bit disingenuous to compare giving a lift to a friend with using Uber to find you someone willing to pay you to drive them around.
Uber pretends (or used to) to be "ride-sharing" but it isn't. Ride sharing would have people who are making trips post their trips and offer to pick people up on the way. "I'm going from the vicinity of the high school to the mall leaving between 2pm and 3pm, any riders?" If Uber was doing this, they would have an argument that they aren't a taxi service they are just selling unused seats in cars that were making the trip anyway. But that isn't what Uber is selling.
And if I do it for his friends every now and then, do I need it? Still, probably not. But you think there's some magical, arbitrary line that exists somewhere saying that if I transport enough people enough times for enough money, suddenly I need insurance and have to pass a bunch of tests and comply with a bunch of regulations.
There is a line, but it isn't arbitrary or magical. When it stops being "give a friend a lift to the airport" and starts being "charging people money to take them to the airport" that's the line. It has become commercial activity.
Uber pretends (or used to) to be "ride-sharing" but it isn't. Ride sharing would have people who are making trips post their trips and offer to pick people up on the way. "I'm going from the vicinity of the high school to the mall leaving between 2pm and 3pm, any riders?" If Uber was doing this, they would have an argument that they aren't a taxi service they are just selling unused seats in cars that were making the trip anyway. But that isn't what Uber is selling. -- JimFive
Any light bulb and mirror can create momentum, with no propellant expended. SF writers have known for a long time that, in principle, electromagnetic effects like powerful lasers can create thrust.
By expelling photons, which are then acting as a propellant. -- JimFive
You seem to be using the term "bad contract" as if it is some sort of term of art in contract law. I don't think anyone is saying that the contract is bad as in unenforceable, I think they're saying it's bad as in it was a bad decision to agree to it. -- JimFive
The fact that both parties agreed to it does not mean that it isn't a horrible contract. People sometimes agree to things that turn out to be bad. -- JimFive
I agree. I can believe that Snowden's revelations hurt National Security and anti-terrorism and ALSO believe that what he did was a great service to the country. Unless they specifically asked something like, "Do you support Snowden's actions?" then I don't think you get a good sense of what people think about him. -- JimFive
I think it could be argued that putting in fake orders (orders not intended to be executed) for the purpose of manipulating the price is equivalent to spreading rumors (to the other trading algorithms). -- JimFive
Slashdot Mirror
So there are two parts to that. A) Federal citizens have the right to vote
Unless denied that right by the state or federal government. Is it a right if it can be abridged by law?
and B) States shall not deny that right based on gender, age, race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Can the government, Federal or State, grant non-citizens suffrage? Yes.
Can the government, Federal or State, remove suffrage from citizens? Yes, as long as they abide by the restrictions of the 15th, 19th and 26th Amendments.
We are a long way from the original topic, which was "What rights does a non-citizen resident have under the constitution?" and the answer is all of them except the right to hold elected office and the "right" to vote. To go even further back on topic, does a non-citizen resident have the right to free movement? And the answer is yes, rights shall not be abridged without due process of law, so until someone has been brought to trial they have the rights associated with being a free person.
Regarding the 6.6% of non-citizens who vote, how many of them are voting legally, that is, how many of them have been granted suffrage by the state in which they reside?
The only right that the US Constitution grants to specifically to citizens is the right to hold elected office. There is no Federal "right to vote" as there are no Federal Elections. Voting is a State issue. The 14th Amendment specifically allows for States to limit the right to vote but requires that the population used to calculate representation be reduced as well. The 15th Amendment says that a State cannot deny voting rights due to "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" and the 19th extends that protection to women, while the 26th extends that protection to all ages 18 and above.
Neither Habeus Corpus nor any of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are limited to citizens.
Even Demore v. Kim acknowledges that "the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process in deportation proceedings"
Thus, it seems that the only right that citizens have that is not granted to others is the right of entry. Once someone is under the jurisdiction of the US they have constitutional rights.
Aside: I don't recall Obama advocating for voting rights for non-citizens, has he done so?
--
JimFive
Since Rashid isn't a US citizen, it's questionable what Consititutional rights he has in the US
It's not questionable at all actually. He has all the rights granted by his humanity. Constitutional rights apply to everyone under the jurisdiction of the United States, not just citizens.
--
JimFive
Best case, because it's impossible to find the ballot I cast at 7:01 am that morning
Correct.
This isn't correct. At least where I vote you fill out a form with your name and address and the serial number of your (scantron) ballot gets written on the form, so it is possible to dig through the ballots and find the one associated with your name. This might not be possible with electronic voting, however.
--
JimFive
Shortly after pay at the pump became common, I was working with a guy who got pulled over after leaving a gas station because the attendant called the cops thinking he hadn't paid. Having a receipt meant that he just showed it to the cop and was on his way. Without the receipt it would have been a much worse experience.
--
JimFive
The side that names a number first loses. It is that simple.
Research into the cognitive bias of Anchoring implies that it might be a good idea to be the first side that names a number, just make sure your number is high enough to move their perception of the value of the job without pricing yourself out of their budget.
--
JimFive
No, it's lower case, so its millipicobits, now that's slow.
You seem to have missed the point of this article: THERE WAS NO STUDY.
The "researcher" made up a plausible but obviously flawed study and submitted it to a for-profit "science" journal. After passing the review process (e.g. paying $600) the paper was published and then picked up by news outlets which regurgitated the headline summary without looking at the write up enough to notice that it was flawed. The research here had nothing to do with chocolate.
--
JimFive
That depends on how the online copies are handled. I use Crashplan on a drive at a friend's house. It has file versioning and files deleted locally are available on the backup. The backups are encrypted and if I have a total drive failure and I can go get the drive and restore locally instead of over the network.
This does not deal with bare drive restores. My current plan is to not worry about it, if I lose a whole drive I'll do a new install and then restore the data files from the backup.
--
JimFive
Goods and services do not have an intrinsic value; their value is determined by scarcity and demand. If dish washers are not scarce, their wages are low and they should be low. The idea that labor or products have some intrinsic, absolute value independent of scarcity or demand is common in fascist and Marxist economics, and it simply doesn't work in practice.
I agree with everything here (when I said "actual value" I meant that colloquially as value to the consumer", sorry about the ambiguity) except "...is common is fascist and Marxist economics..." It always seems to be the pro-capitalists that talk about value as independent from demand. In fact, you do it immediately in the next sentence:
the price is determined by the cost of the inputs plus the value the restaurant adds" [emphasis added]
No, the price is determined as the equilibrium between what the customers are willing to pay and what the vendor is willing to accept. The cost puts a floor on what is profitable to the vendor, but that's it.
If one of the inputs (e.g., clean dishes) becomes more expensive, then the customer will just pay for it.
This presumes that the customer is willing to pay more. The value to the customer of the end product hasn't changed so why would this be true? But, yes, if the amount that the vendor is willing to accept changes then a new equilibrium price will be found and that new price may be higher. It could also be lower (especially if the new minimum wage puts more people on the border line of willingness to pay, in this case price discrimination is the key).
Anyway, all I was pointing out is that there are situations at the minimum wage level where the value to the business of getting the job done is higher than the current cost to the business of getting that job done. While businesses may complain about it, they'll pay the higher wage for those jobs.
(Regarding substitution: I assume that most restaurants already have industrial dishwashers, but those dishwashers don't load themselves.)
--
JimFive
(While you're at it, also explain why businesses would pay $15/h for a worker who doesn't increase revenue by significantly more than $15 for each hour he works.)
The actual situation may be the opposite of this. Businesses are paying less that $15/h for a worker whose job is worth significantly more than $15 for each hour he works. Why? Because the price (wage of the job) is based on market equilibrium, not the actual value of the end product. Take for example the job of washing dishes in a restaurant. Anybody can do the job but the job is vital to the business. The supply of labor is so high that it is a minimum wage job even though the value to the restaurant of having clean dishes is very high.
--
JimFive
It seems that you could model a sphere by using hexagonal tiles and generating two circular "hemispheres" that joined at the equator.
--
JimFive
I come up with 5:
1, 3, 9, 27, 81
To measure 73 you put 81 + 1 on one side and 9 on the other, etc
That lets you weigh up to 121. These are powers of 3 which is unintuitive to me. I looked briefly at trying to do without a 1, but there seem to be gaps e.g. with 2,3,9 you can't make 13 and you would still need 2 more to get to 100.
--
JimFive
I mentioned this in another thread, but other shows like "The Flash" depicts every single fracking woman as a supersmart,[...]
Well, no. The Flash TV show has 2 women. Dr. Caitlin Snow, yes super smart but no more able than Cisco, and Iris West, normal woman reporter, not a supergenius whatsoever. The only other genius woman I recall was the bee robot girl. The female villains do not seem more powerful than the male villains.
In "The Arrow" the only supergenius woman is Felicity and she is also the only person in the world who is not a killing machine. So, your perception of those shows seems a bit off.
--
JimFive
(Can anyone tell me what the difference between a Presbyterian and a Methodist is?)
Short, wikipedia based answer: Presbyterian's are Calvinists, while Methodists are Wesleyan-Arminianist. Calvinists believe that "sin so affects human nature that they are unable even to exercise faith in Christ by their own will." thus the only salvation is God's choice to save someone, and that this choice is predestined. Arminian's believe that God gave all men free will to choose to have faith in God and it is this act of choice that brings salvation.
--
JimFive
Because different locations have different ballots due to being in different districts and having different candidates and issues.
In other words, you're advocating to never forgive them for their mistakes.
Sony Root Kit.
Yes, I am comparing these two things. The problem isn't that they tried a new product that failed, it is that the tried to make a change that deliberately harmed their customers.
I'm just curious what separates legal behavior from illegal behavior
Primarily, intent.
If you regularly drive people places for money then you are operating a business and have to abide by business rules. If you occasionally give your friend a lift and he gives you gas money then you aren't.
It is a bit disingenuous to compare giving a lift to a friend with using Uber to find you someone willing to pay you to drive them around.
Uber pretends (or used to) to be "ride-sharing" but it isn't. Ride sharing would have people who are making trips post their trips and offer to pick people up on the way. "I'm going from the vicinity of the high school to the mall leaving between 2pm and 3pm, any riders?" If Uber was doing this, they would have an argument that they aren't a taxi service they are just selling unused seats in cars that were making the trip anyway. But that isn't what Uber is selling.
I know I'm late, but there was a 4.2 earthquake in Michigan on Saturday 5/2.
And if I do it for his friends every now and then, do I need it? Still, probably not. But you think there's some magical, arbitrary line that exists somewhere saying that if I transport enough people enough times for enough money, suddenly I need insurance and have to pass a bunch of tests and comply with a bunch of regulations.
There is a line, but it isn't arbitrary or magical. When it stops being "give a friend a lift to the airport" and starts being "charging people money to take them to the airport" that's the line. It has become commercial activity.
Uber pretends (or used to) to be "ride-sharing" but it isn't. Ride sharing would have people who are making trips post their trips and offer to pick people up on the way. "I'm going from the vicinity of the high school to the mall leaving between 2pm and 3pm, any riders?" If Uber was doing this, they would have an argument that they aren't a taxi service they are just selling unused seats in cars that were making the trip anyway. But that isn't what Uber is selling.
--
JimFive
Any light bulb and mirror can create momentum, with no propellant expended. SF writers have known for a long time that, in principle, electromagnetic effects like powerful lasers can create thrust.
By expelling photons, which are then acting as a propellant.
--
JimFive
You seem to be using the term "bad contract" as if it is some sort of term of art in contract law. I don't think anyone is saying that the contract is bad as in unenforceable, I think they're saying it's bad as in it was a bad decision to agree to it.
--
JimFive
The fact that both parties agreed to it does not mean that it isn't a horrible contract. People sometimes agree to things that turn out to be bad.
--
JimFive
I agree. I can believe that Snowden's revelations hurt National Security and anti-terrorism and ALSO believe that what he did was a great service to the country. Unless they specifically asked something like, "Do you support Snowden's actions?" then I don't think you get a good sense of what people think about him.
--
JimFive
I think it could be argued that putting in fake orders (orders not intended to be executed) for the purpose of manipulating the price is equivalent to spreading rumors (to the other trading algorithms).
--
JimFive