Understanding it would get in the way of the corporatist bootlicking, however - do you take them black or do you sprinkle them with sugar first?
Oh good, personal attacks. Your argument must be going well. And here I thought I was just explaining common sense law. Apparently it's not so common. Spoiler: when you sign a contract that says that someone can do something, you can't sue them for doing that. You already acknowledged that they said they're going to do it. It shouldn't be a huge shock when they do exactly what they say they're going to do.
Whether that contract is legal is another issue. And, again, if you think it is not legal in Nevada, then cite the Nevada state law which makes it illegal.
Since you're so set on allowing corporations to intrude on your privacy on a moment's notice
Sweet, misrepresenting my position. Man, you're killing this argument.
The only thing I'm doing is saying that people are stupid for acting upset when someone does exactly what they say they're going to do. If YOU don't want the hotel to treat you like that, then don't stay there. Simple as that.
Really, this isn't a hard concept and doesn't need to be a complex argument. If you don't like their practices, don't stay there. Otherwise, if you agree to what they tell you they're going to do, then don't get all butthurt when they do it.
why don't you take a break and show your evidence that these are legal searches.
You seem to have the burden of proof backwards, friend. If someone is claiming that these are not legal, the burden of proof is on them to prove it. The way to prove it is to simply cite the statute which makes it illegal. That shouldn't be difficult, there are a finite number of statutes, and I expect them all to be publicly available. Moreover, they do not make laws to state what IS legal, only what is NOT. Therefore, you're asking me to go through each and every Nevada statute and show that it does not apply here. Again, you have that backwards.
If I tell you the sky is green, it is not your responsibility to disprove me, it is my responsibility to prove my claim. The reason why I think this is legal is because it's part of a contract that you signed. If you think it is not legal, then show the law which makes it illegal.
Or, trot out logical fallacies, misrepresent my position, and personally attack me. Whatever feels right to you.
You lost me on how non-compete clauses in California relate to hotel room security in Las Vegas. If you're trying to imply that this is not legal under Nevada state law, the usual next step is to cite the actual law you're referring to.
A person may sue for "intrusion upon seclusion" if any aspect of his/her life that he/she reasonably expected would not be intruded upon was violated.
Again, did you read the hotel agreement? You see the part where it says security may enter your room for literally any reason? So, why exactly do you expect that you would not be intruded upon when it explicitly says you will?
Seriously, if you disagree go rent a room in Vegas and then sue them when housekeeping or security go into your room. I'll put $100 down that I know exactly what Exhibit A for the defense is going to be. It's going to be your rental agreement.
Next, find a lawyer to take your case where the fee agreement is that they get nothing up front and 50% or more of your winnings. Lawyers will be happy to take your money, but they know you're not going to win.
If they don't have some evidence a crime is being committed, then they don't have the right to search your room
If you're talking about the police, you're correct. If you're talking about hotel security, you're wrong. Courts have ruled that you have fourth amendment protections from police in a hotel room. The fourth amendment is limited in scope to actions by law enforcement or other government. If you disagree, find relevant case law. The fourth amendment does not restrict hotel security from entering a hotel room for any reason. They are private employees entering the property of their employer. It is not your property.
The difference is that housekeeping has a reason to be there, and security doesn't, until they are alerted by housekeeping.
Great, find literally any legal case which supports your opinion. Otherwise, please let people know that this is only your opinion on how you think it should be, not a statement of fact on reality.
The hotel may have cause to enter your room if they believe criminal activity is taking place, housekeeping, maintenance, or a disruption of other guests.
Or for security. Or for any other reason, as per the agreement you agree to. It literally says for any other reason. If you don't agree, then don't stay there.
In no circumstance are they allowed to enter without announcing themselves first.
If he walks in and finds the room already occupied, he can shoot you for being in his room? You two can have yourselves a nice little shootout to figure out who gets to keep the room?
That's correct, if you are assigned an occupied room then a battle to the death shall ensue, using any weapons available to any person, including any passers-by who want to assist either party, and the survivor gets to stay in the room. It's right there in the agreement. The legal term for this is the Thunderdome Clause, it's basically boilerplate. MAGA
I own multiple guns and occasionally bring them with me. I still wouldn't shoot any random person walking into my hotel room, because my first thought would be that they are staff making crap wages and probably don't deserve to get shot for doing their job. If it's obvious that they aren't staff and they aren't leaving immediately, then defense starts to come to mind.
Then again, I also don't walk around being afraid of everything all the time like some people apparently do.
Have you ever read the agreement when you rent a room?
When you come back to your room after being gone and see that housekeeping has cleaned it, did they give you explicit advance warning that they were going to do that?
It's not "basically" the "property" of the tenant, it is "actually" the "property" of the hotel.
You're protected against warrantless search and seizure by the police. Just like maintenance and cleaning staff are authorized to enter guest rooms, I'm pretty sure that the hotel would also say that security staff are authorized, and you agree to that when you book a room.
Imagine if you leave multiple rifles and buckets of ammo around your room, or large quantities of obvious illegal drugs, and housekeeping comes in to clean. If they see that, they can probably notify the police who now have probable cause to enter your room. I imagine it is no different with security instead of housekeeping.
What that lawyer's blog is talking about is staff letting police into your room without a reason. That's not what this story is about.
Correct, the 5 planes of flight 19 became lost because the leader thought they were over the Florida keys instead of the Bahamas, so they went the wrong way multiple times. The Mariner that took off to search for them exploded in mid air. They were known to collect gas vapors in parts of the plane.
However, the compasses on the Avengers weren't working. I've heard multiple reports of faulty compasses and electronics around the Bermuda triangle, but the question there is whether or not that happens with any more regularity in that area versus anywhere else.
How do those work? My phone has something similar, called Dash Charge, which uses USB-C and works as long as the charger supports it. What's the difference, if rapid charging like that is possible then why isn't it the norm?
It's a typical California solution to a problem. A better solution would be to provide incentives or penalties to encourage companies to do what you want in regard to a purely civic issue like this, just outright banning is pretty typical of California.
Unfortunately it seems like journalists are a dying breed. The old guard hasn't seemed to really be replaced by people with their same skill set. I don't know what journalism schools teach, but it doesn't look like investigative journalism is one of the things, or at least that's not what the graduates choose to do.
There are depressingly few actual investigative journalists left. I can think of Brian Krebs as a good example, and it sounds like Bob Woodward is still doing his thing, but it feels like a "journalist" today is someone who tells someone else what they read about.
If Rosenstein committed a crime, why isn't he charged? Also, it's "perjury", not "purgery," and his name is "Rosenstein."
Let me know how to fire Roseinstein and get someone who isn't corrupt into the DOJ and I'll get her charged.
OK. Trump can fire him for any reason or none at all. Congress can also impeach him for high crimes and misdemeanors, which include perjury. So if he actually committed perjury or another crime it should be a pretty easy process. If he hasn't, then it's not as easy. A couple Republicans have already drafted articles of impeachment, but they don't allege perjury. Wonder why. Must be all of those Republicans trying to protect the guy feeding information to the Clinton campaign. Which is weird, because Rosenstein wasn't the deputy AG during the campaign at all. The document he signed, after Trump nominated him, was to extend surveillance of Page, not begin it, and by then the Clinton campaign was dead and cold.
If someone who complains about Russia is also making serious efforts to the combat the much more concrete and threatening corporate influence
There might be a certain amount of cognitive dissonance among people who support the Citizens United decision but are upset at Russia. There are certainly a lot of people who are upset about both though.
It really comes down to what's criminal behavior, though. The Supreme Court has already decided that American corporations are free to influence elections. The rules are different for foreign citizens and people working with them.
It would be great if Citizens United was overturned but I don't see that realistically happening.
First, the people who made so much money peddling fake news would and do disagree with that statement. They target conservatives for a reason. They straight up say that trying to target liberal audiences didn't work because it would get fact checked in the comments. If you want me to do the research and find that interview I'll be happy to. I'm sure you'll prefer if someone else verifies that instead of you.
Second, I did not vote for Clinton. Trump voters bought a lie but I didn't get robbed, I knew my candidate wasn't going to win.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple is going back to its roots for its new campus.
What does Cupertino do for Apple?
It pays the people who respond to Apple's campus when their employees walk into glass walls.
They're looking for a better future for them and no one else but them, and that's the problem.
Understanding it would get in the way of the corporatist bootlicking, however - do you take them black or do you sprinkle them with sugar first?
Oh good, personal attacks. Your argument must be going well. And here I thought I was just explaining common sense law. Apparently it's not so common. Spoiler: when you sign a contract that says that someone can do something, you can't sue them for doing that. You already acknowledged that they said they're going to do it. It shouldn't be a huge shock when they do exactly what they say they're going to do.
Whether that contract is legal is another issue. And, again, if you think it is not legal in Nevada, then cite the Nevada state law which makes it illegal.
Since you're so set on allowing corporations to intrude on your privacy on a moment's notice
Sweet, misrepresenting my position. Man, you're killing this argument.
The only thing I'm doing is saying that people are stupid for acting upset when someone does exactly what they say they're going to do. If YOU don't want the hotel to treat you like that, then don't stay there. Simple as that.
Really, this isn't a hard concept and doesn't need to be a complex argument. If you don't like their practices, don't stay there. Otherwise, if you agree to what they tell you they're going to do, then don't get all butthurt when they do it.
why don't you take a break and show your evidence that these are legal searches.
You seem to have the burden of proof backwards, friend. If someone is claiming that these are not legal, the burden of proof is on them to prove it. The way to prove it is to simply cite the statute which makes it illegal. That shouldn't be difficult, there are a finite number of statutes, and I expect them all to be publicly available. Moreover, they do not make laws to state what IS legal, only what is NOT. Therefore, you're asking me to go through each and every Nevada statute and show that it does not apply here. Again, you have that backwards.
If I tell you the sky is green, it is not your responsibility to disprove me, it is my responsibility to prove my claim. The reason why I think this is legal is because it's part of a contract that you signed. If you think it is not legal, then show the law which makes it illegal.
Or, trot out logical fallacies, misrepresent my position, and personally attack me. Whatever feels right to you.
You lost me on how non-compete clauses in California relate to hotel room security in Las Vegas. If you're trying to imply that this is not legal under Nevada state law, the usual next step is to cite the actual law you're referring to.
I'm not sure what else to add to this hypothetical scenario other than that I think it is highly unlikely.
Maybe a jury would decline to punish the woman. The jury definitely would not punish the company who explicitly told her they were going to do that.
But again, IANAL, so what do I know?
Not much.
A person may sue for "intrusion upon seclusion" if any aspect of his/her life that he/she reasonably expected would not be intruded upon was violated.
Again, did you read the hotel agreement? You see the part where it says security may enter your room for literally any reason? So, why exactly do you expect that you would not be intruded upon when it explicitly says you will?
Seriously, if you disagree go rent a room in Vegas and then sue them when housekeeping or security go into your room. I'll put $100 down that I know exactly what Exhibit A for the defense is going to be. It's going to be your rental agreement.
Next, find a lawyer to take your case where the fee agreement is that they get nothing up front and 50% or more of your winnings. Lawyers will be happy to take your money, but they know you're not going to win.
Probably not. They can certainly legally get away with security entering your room for any reason though.
it's yours until checkout.
No it's not, read the hotel agreement.
If they don't have some evidence a crime is being committed, then they don't have the right to search your room
If you're talking about the police, you're correct. If you're talking about hotel security, you're wrong. Courts have ruled that you have fourth amendment protections from police in a hotel room. The fourth amendment is limited in scope to actions by law enforcement or other government. If you disagree, find relevant case law. The fourth amendment does not restrict hotel security from entering a hotel room for any reason. They are private employees entering the property of their employer. It is not your property.
The difference is that housekeeping has a reason to be there, and security doesn't, until they are alerted by housekeeping.
Great, find literally any legal case which supports your opinion. Otherwise, please let people know that this is only your opinion on how you think it should be, not a statement of fact on reality.
Just out of curiosity, why did you feel the need to mention the shooter's race three times?
The hotel may have cause to enter your room if they believe criminal activity is taking place, housekeeping, maintenance, or a disruption of other guests.
Or for security. Or for any other reason, as per the agreement you agree to. It literally says for any other reason. If you don't agree, then don't stay there.
In no circumstance are they allowed to enter without announcing themselves first.
Do you have a citation for that claim?
IANAL
Never mind... of course you don't.
The man entering the room was absolutely criminal in entering a room like that without knocking.
Nice, start off your argument with an obviously incorrect statement.
If he walks in and finds the room already occupied, he can shoot you for being in his room? You two can have yourselves a nice little shootout to figure out who gets to keep the room?
That's correct, if you are assigned an occupied room then a battle to the death shall ensue, using any weapons available to any person, including any passers-by who want to assist either party, and the survivor gets to stay in the room. It's right there in the agreement. The legal term for this is the Thunderdome Clause, it's basically boilerplate. MAGA
I own multiple guns and occasionally bring them with me. I still wouldn't shoot any random person walking into my hotel room, because my first thought would be that they are staff making crap wages and probably don't deserve to get shot for doing their job. If it's obvious that they aren't staff and they aren't leaving immediately, then defense starts to come to mind.
Then again, I also don't walk around being afraid of everything all the time like some people apparently do.
Have you ever read the agreement when you rent a room?
When you come back to your room after being gone and see that housekeeping has cleaned it, did they give you explicit advance warning that they were going to do that?
It's not "basically" the "property" of the tenant, it is "actually" the "property" of the hotel.
Well done, that comment is a pretty good example of modern discourse.
"My opponent is in favor of letting people barge into rooms and rape the occupants. My opponent opposes people defending themselves from rape."
Yeah, I'm sure you really accurately captured the essence of that argument. Great job.
You're protected against warrantless search and seizure by the police. Just like maintenance and cleaning staff are authorized to enter guest rooms, I'm pretty sure that the hotel would also say that security staff are authorized, and you agree to that when you book a room.
Imagine if you leave multiple rifles and buckets of ammo around your room, or large quantities of obvious illegal drugs, and housekeeping comes in to clean. If they see that, they can probably notify the police who now have probable cause to enter your room. I imagine it is no different with security instead of housekeeping.
What that lawyer's blog is talking about is staff letting police into your room without a reason. That's not what this story is about.
Correct, the 5 planes of flight 19 became lost because the leader thought they were over the Florida keys instead of the Bahamas, so they went the wrong way multiple times. The Mariner that took off to search for them exploded in mid air. They were known to collect gas vapors in parts of the plane.
However, the compasses on the Avengers weren't working. I've heard multiple reports of faulty compasses and electronics around the Bermuda triangle, but the question there is whether or not that happens with any more regularity in that area versus anywhere else.
How do those work? My phone has something similar, called Dash Charge, which uses USB-C and works as long as the charger supports it. What's the difference, if rapid charging like that is possible then why isn't it the norm?
It's a typical California solution to a problem. A better solution would be to provide incentives or penalties to encourage companies to do what you want in regard to a purely civic issue like this, just outright banning is pretty typical of California.
Unfortunately it seems like journalists are a dying breed. The old guard hasn't seemed to really be replaced by people with their same skill set. I don't know what journalism schools teach, but it doesn't look like investigative journalism is one of the things, or at least that's not what the graduates choose to do.
There are depressingly few actual investigative journalists left. I can think of Brian Krebs as a good example, and it sounds like Bob Woodward is still doing his thing, but it feels like a "journalist" today is someone who tells someone else what they read about.
If Rosenstein committed a crime, why isn't he charged? Also, it's "perjury", not "purgery," and his name is "Rosenstein."
Let me know how to fire Roseinstein and get someone who isn't corrupt into the DOJ and I'll get her charged.
OK. Trump can fire him for any reason or none at all. Congress can also impeach him for high crimes and misdemeanors, which include perjury. So if he actually committed perjury or another crime it should be a pretty easy process. If he hasn't, then it's not as easy. A couple Republicans have already drafted articles of impeachment, but they don't allege perjury. Wonder why. Must be all of those Republicans trying to protect the guy feeding information to the Clinton campaign. Which is weird, because Rosenstein wasn't the deputy AG during the campaign at all. The document he signed, after Trump nominated him, was to extend surveillance of Page, not begin it, and by then the Clinton campaign was dead and cold.
If someone who complains about Russia is also making serious efforts to the combat the much more concrete and threatening corporate influence
There might be a certain amount of cognitive dissonance among people who support the Citizens United decision but are upset at Russia. There are certainly a lot of people who are upset about both though.
It really comes down to what's criminal behavior, though. The Supreme Court has already decided that American corporations are free to influence elections. The rules are different for foreign citizens and people working with them.
It would be great if Citizens United was overturned but I don't see that realistically happening.
First, the people who made so much money peddling fake news would and do disagree with that statement. They target conservatives for a reason. They straight up say that trying to target liberal audiences didn't work because it would get fact checked in the comments. If you want me to do the research and find that interview I'll be happy to. I'm sure you'll prefer if someone else verifies that instead of you.
Second, I did not vote for Clinton. Trump voters bought a lie but I didn't get robbed, I knew my candidate wasn't going to win.