The cost of NYC medallions is not all that high. They are just not available, so people who already have one can sell it for a lot of money if they want.
Now, ask yourself why a city would want to limit the number of cabs, and if you can't come up with any reasons other than 'corruption' and 'bought by the taxi companies' then you can't think very well.
That is you doing the rebooking. This is the flight crew rebooking for you. They are not the same. And having gone through both ways (my rebooking vs airline rebooking) I much prefer to have the airline do it. However, you used to have to wait til you were on the ground for the airline to rebook.
In some cities no distinction is made between cabs that are 'hailed' and cabs that are phoned for.
In other cities (such as NY) they do make a distinction. 'Yellow cabs' are hailed, and can not be phoned for. 'Black cars' are phoned for, and can not be hailed. Both are regulated.
Wrong again. It says that ALL buildings must be in compliance by July 1, 2019. The alteration permit being discussed is the one to install the sprinklers, which must be done. The reason it mentions that at all is because if you wait to do the work you could have even more requirements.
The only thing you have right is that it is not a taking, just like these proposed laws.
Additionally, Mugler v. Kansas was a Supreme Court case which affirmed that a state can, through its police powers and for the public good, place restrictions on property WITHOUT requiring compensation. In particular, the Court reasoned that a prohibition on the use of property, by valid legislation, for purposes of protecting the health and safety of the community cannot be deemed a taking or an appropriation of property for public benefit. Since the legislation did not restrict the owners control, right to dispose, or ability to use for lawful purposes, no taking had occurred.
You make the common mistake of believing your own bullshit. Yes, in certain cases where there are substantial restrictions applied it can be considered a taking. 'You must remove the house and not rebuild' is a substantial restriction. 'You must add bracing to bring it up to code' is not. This is well established. And even when it is a taking, there are exceptions to the compensation rule for health and safety regulations.
The cases I cited put no more or less of a restriction on property than earthquake proofing does, and they apply to ALL structures, regardless of when they were built or updated.
Where, exactly, does the Fifth Amendment say that? How does a building code change 'take property for public use'? The property is still yours, and the public does not get to use it.
And there certainly has been precedence. NYC passed a law that ALL office buildings over 100 ft tall have a sprinkler system. NYS passed a law that ALL residences that burn fuel have a CO detector.
Haha! Good one. I have a neighbor that thought like you. He had a crappy garage that was barely standing. His brilliant idea was that a storm would knock it down and then the insurance would pay for a new garage. Worked right up until the 'insurance pays' part. Seems that if you have a structure you know (or should know) is unsafe or in danger and something happens to it, they DO NOT PAY.
An awful lot of those residences are going to be rental properties housing those low-income people you are worried about.
As for owner-occupied homes, I can see your point. However, what happens when there is an earthquake? Should the owners who decided not to upgrade be put at the bottom of the priority list for rescue services? Should the owner be eligible for financial aid?
More libertarian looniness. Buildings are condemned all the time for being unsafe.
Ah, the good old 'free market' will solve everything. Because of course all the businesses and people in the thousands of buildings can just move, no problem. Right?
And of course the city has no stake in this, because it's not like a building collapse puts any strain on services, right?
And, naturally, the only people that should be concerned are the tenants of the buildings. I mean, of course a building will require and passers-by to sign a contract before falling on them, right?
When it comes right down to it, what CAN be printed (in home or at least locally) that is desirable and makes up a significant part of shipped things? It can't really think of anything.
Nobody said anything about blocking ads. YOU are the one who said it was a good idea to 'poison the well'. Yes, you can not look at ads as you walk through the mall. You can not go and paint over all the ads so nobody else sees them either, which is what this idiotic 'poisoning the well' is attempting to do.
This is not blocking, this is actively attempting to screw with the sites revenue by making ads worthless. I can see absolutely no justification for that.
In THIS case, however, the owner of the FitBit is the one making the claim that FitBit supports his position (ie FitBit shows he can't walk 10 meters). The insurance carrier did not go after the data, he provided it. Now why anyone would accept that data is beyond me.
Note that this is HIS lawyer who is submitting the FitBit records, NOT the insurance company. The insurance company says his claim is fraudulent, and HE is saying no it isn't, my FitBit data proves it.
Well, if you want to be a complete idiot (or maybe you just can't help it), let's go the other way. I suggest we abolish all traffic laws and rules of the road. Cause you know, restriction of liberty. In fact, I suggest we abolish all laws, from murder to building codes, because you know, restriction of liberty.
Furthermore, instead of having those pesky scheduled flights (at an airport no less), I suggest that the airlines have planes follow you around at all times so you can just hop on (for free, of course) whenever you want. Cause otherwise, you know, restriction of liberty.
Has it occured to your genius mind that being stuck in a tube 7 miles high in the sky, with no way out except waiting to get to the destination, landing somewhere you don't want to be, or death, is a way more severe limitation on your liberty than the 2 seconds you spend in the scanner?
They could do those stupid things you suggested, and you would quickly find out that people would exercise their, you know, liberty to NOT FLY.
That is nice and all, but we weren't talking about the no fly list, we were talking about going through scanners. They are not the same thing. The no fly list can actually restrict your freedom of movement, going through a scanner is an inconvenience. If you chose not to be screened it is you, not the government that has restricted your freedom of movement.
Liberty is primarily the ability to make choices. Being on the no fly list removes a choice, so can be seen as a restriction on liberty. Going through a scanner does not remove any choices.
Slashdot Mirror
The cost of NYC medallions is not all that high. They are just not available, so people who already have one can sell it for a lot of money if they want.
Now, ask yourself why a city would want to limit the number of cabs, and if you can't come up with any reasons other than 'corruption' and 'bought by the taxi companies' then you can't think very well.
That is you doing the rebooking. This is the flight crew rebooking for you. They are not the same. And having gone through both ways (my rebooking vs airline rebooking) I much prefer to have the airline do it. However, you used to have to wait til you were on the ground for the airline to rebook.
It is 'Watergate does not bother me, does your conscience bother you, tell the truth'.
In some cities no distinction is made between cabs that are 'hailed' and cabs that are phoned for.
In other cities (such as NY) they do make a distinction. 'Yellow cabs' are hailed, and can not be phoned for. 'Black cars' are phoned for, and can not be hailed. Both are regulated.
According to the IBM site, it means that the flight crew can rebook flights for passengers when they will be missing connections, etc.
Wrong again. It says that ALL buildings must be in compliance by July 1, 2019. The alteration permit being discussed is the one to install the sprinklers, which must be done. The reason it mentions that at all is because if you wait to do the work you could have even more requirements.
The only thing you have right is that it is not a taking, just like these proposed laws.
Additionally, Mugler v. Kansas was a Supreme Court case which affirmed that a state can, through its police powers and for the public good, place restrictions on property WITHOUT requiring compensation. In particular, the Court reasoned that a prohibition on the use of property, by valid legislation, for purposes of protecting the health and safety of the community cannot be deemed a taking or an appropriation of property for public benefit. Since the legislation did not restrict the owners control, right to dispose, or ability to use for lawful purposes, no taking had occurred.
NY law requiring all dwellings (regardless of when they were built) to have CO detectors.
NYC law requiring all office buildings higher than 100 feet (regardless of when they were built) to have sprinkler systems installed.
You make the common mistake of believing your own bullshit. Yes, in certain cases where there are substantial restrictions applied it can be considered a taking. 'You must remove the house and not rebuild' is a substantial restriction. 'You must add bracing to bring it up to code' is not. This is well established. And even when it is a taking, there are exceptions to the compensation rule for health and safety regulations.
The cases I cited put no more or less of a restriction on property than earthquake proofing does, and they apply to ALL structures, regardless of when they were built or updated.
Where, exactly, does the Fifth Amendment say that? How does a building code change 'take property for public use'? The property is still yours, and the public does not get to use it.
And there certainly has been precedence. NYC passed a law that ALL office buildings over 100 ft tall have a sprinkler system. NYS passed a law that ALL residences that burn fuel have a CO detector.
Haha! Good one. I have a neighbor that thought like you. He had a crappy garage that was barely standing. His brilliant idea was that a storm would knock it down and then the insurance would pay for a new garage. Worked right up until the 'insurance pays' part. Seems that if you have a structure you know (or should know) is unsafe or in danger and something happens to it, they DO NOT PAY.
An awful lot of those residences are going to be rental properties housing those low-income people you are worried about.
As for owner-occupied homes, I can see your point. However, what happens when there is an earthquake? Should the owners who decided not to upgrade be put at the bottom of the priority list for rescue services? Should the owner be eligible for financial aid?
More libertarian looniness. Buildings are condemned all the time for being unsafe.
Ah, the good old 'free market' will solve everything. Because of course all the businesses and people in the thousands of buildings can just move, no problem. Right?
And of course the city has no stake in this, because it's not like a building collapse puts any strain on services, right?
And, naturally, the only people that should be concerned are the tenants of the buildings. I mean, of course a building will require and passers-by to sign a contract before falling on them, right?
Yeah, 'DRM' is what is going to hold it back, not the fact that there is very little desirable stuff that can be printed (at home or locally).
When it comes right down to it, what CAN be printed (in home or at least locally) that is desirable and makes up a significant part of shipped things? It can't really think of anything.
Huh? You think the sites allow the ads on there for free? It IS their revenue.
Nobody said anything about blocking ads. YOU are the one who said it was a good idea to 'poison the well'. Yes, you can not look at ads as you walk through the mall. You can not go and paint over all the ads so nobody else sees them either, which is what this idiotic 'poisoning the well' is attempting to do.
This is not blocking, this is actively attempting to screw with the sites revenue by making ads worthless. I can see absolutely no justification for that.
No argument there.
Um, this is the owner of the FitBit claiming the FitBit data proves his case, not the insurance company.
In THIS case, however, the owner of the FitBit is the one making the claim that FitBit supports his position (ie FitBit shows he can't walk 10 meters). The insurance carrier did not go after the data, he provided it. Now why anyone would accept that data is beyond me.
Note that this is the OWNER of the FitBit trying to use the data, NOT the insurance company.
Note that this is HIS lawyer who is submitting the FitBit records, NOT the insurance company. The insurance company says his claim is fraudulent, and HE is saying no it isn't, my FitBit data proves it.
Well, if you want to be a complete idiot (or maybe you just can't help it), let's go the other way. I suggest we abolish all traffic laws and rules of the road. Cause you know, restriction of liberty. In fact, I suggest we abolish all laws, from murder to building codes, because you know, restriction of liberty.
Furthermore, instead of having those pesky scheduled flights (at an airport no less), I suggest that the airlines have planes follow you around at all times so you can just hop on (for free, of course) whenever you want. Cause otherwise, you know, restriction of liberty.
Has it occured to your genius mind that being stuck in a tube 7 miles high in the sky, with no way out except waiting to get to the destination, landing somewhere you don't want to be, or death, is a way more severe limitation on your liberty than the 2 seconds you spend in the scanner?
They could do those stupid things you suggested, and you would quickly find out that people would exercise their, you know, liberty to NOT FLY.
That is nice and all, but we weren't talking about the no fly list, we were talking about going through scanners. They are not the same thing. The no fly list can actually restrict your freedom of movement, going through a scanner is an inconvenience. If you chose not to be screened it is you, not the government that has restricted your freedom of movement.
Liberty is primarily the ability to make choices. Being on the no fly list removes a choice, so can be seen as a restriction on liberty. Going through a scanner does not remove any choices.