"deported" By this logic anyone who's visa has run out and left any country had been "deported". Someone higher up than the head of the State run University decided that they did not want an activist working for the Government and had him fired. His visa was no longer valid so he left the country. No member of the security apparatus, read police office, immigration officer, soldier, etc, told him to leave; that would have been deportation. I was not aware that the head of a University was part of the security apparatus.
"forced to flee" For someone to be "forced to flee" required "force" to be applied directly to that person to induce them to "flee". Had a member of the security apparatus told him "Leave or bed things will happen" I would see that as force. I do not consider the head of a university advising he leave as soon as possible as "force"; advice? sure but force? no.
Had the article been posted as "Australian's visa revoked in Bahrain over Facebook Posts" and the line in the summary changed to " Mitchell was eventually fired, evicted, and advised to flee because of posts he made on Facebook." Those are both accurate statements without exaggerating the situation.
Mr. Mitchell was not; 1. "deported" His job ended so he probably no longer had a valid work visa 2. "forced to flee". He was advides by his ex-boss to leave as soon as possible. He could have refused and stayed until he something happened.
How about a little truth in reporting. The issue is bad enough as it is without throwing falsehoods on top.
If it is true it is possible that the conversation went something like this; Buyer: the seller sent me bogus merchandise and I want a refund. PP: Send it back and provide proof of reciept and we will refund the money. Buyer: No, I do not want to aid in the duping of the next unsuspecting buyer by sending the item back. PP; We can not allow you to keep both the item and the refund so the only option would be for you to destroy the item, provide proof and we will refund.
I am not saying this is right but is within the TOS.
Actually it is not so far-fetched as you may think as it has worked in Northern Ireland. The IORA was a terrorist organization, disarmed and is now a legetemite part of the Northern Ireland Government. They have recognised leaders so anyone else who calls themselves OIRA can be denounced as not part of their organization as has happened with the PIRA, the CIRA and the RIRA. So as it stands Great Brittain and the OIRA are no longer at war even though other, smaller organizations containing ex-members of the OIRA are still active. Same thing could work with al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
Where in the article you cite does anyone make allegations that the Government is doing anything illegal? All they allege is that the Government is keeping certain things secret by making misleading statements.
Actually the war with al-Qaeda and the Taliban is not indefinite. It is up to the US government to declare when the war is at end. If the Taliban and al-Qaeda made statements that they were ceasing operations, denied involvement in any subsequent actions and assisted authorities in apprehending still active terrorists the US Government would be hard pressed to convince anyone that a state of war still exists. Will the terrorists do that? Probably not but the ball in in their court.
As for detainees, there is a provision in 1021f that states "The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘covered persons’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2)." This will probably be the Defense Subcommittee. I will bet that there will be people on that subcommittee that will demand proof that the person held is covered under (b)(2). It makes great news when the opposition can show that the Party in power is stupid or is "trampling on people's rights". The burden of proof in in the Defense Department not the detainee.
Are the Constitution and Bill of Rights "existing law". Do those laws have stipulations related to due process and illegal confinement? By Section 1021 E do those laws still apply to " United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States"? The answer is yes to all three. This law does not suspend any existing laws for " United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States". Now non-US citizens and people without lawful resident alien status captures or arrested outside the US have never been covered by US law and may be detained until end of conflict.
I have thought about it and I will repeat myself; an able bodied person will need to wait a few minutes or park further away while a wheelchair bound person will have to go home if there is not a space available. The issue isn't when the lot is empty it is when it is full. The requirements for a lot with 100 spaces is 4. Say the average person takes 30 minutes in the store. If the requirements are met a disabled spot will come up every 7.5 minutes and a regular spot will come up every 19 seconds. Say the number of required spots was cut in half to 2. The wait time for a handicap spot would be 15 minutes while the wait time for a regular spot would be 18 seconds. So reducing the number of disabled spots by half you have save each able bodied driver one second. If there were no disabled spots the mobility impaired driver would have to go home; he can not get out of his van while an able bodied driver would wait 18 seconds. No difference to the able bodied driver and in-access to the mobility impaired driver. Not much benefit for such a loss to disabled people. I say again one or two spots in a crowed lot is not going to make much of a difference to able bodied drivers but is very important to mobility impaired drivers.
To those who say that they could be parking in that spot instead of driving around I say that that spot would probably have been taken by the other able bodied person who saw it two minutes ago and you would still be in the same spot and you convenience is outweighed by the needs of the mobility impaired driver that may arrive in the next few minutes.
From the article; "Late last year, president Obama signed a law that makes it possible to indefinitely detain terrorist suspects without any form of trial or due process. Peaceful protesters in Occupy movements all over the world have been labelled as terrorists by the authorities." It seems to imply that the law signed by Obama would allow indefinite detention of Occupy movement protesters. This is a gross misrepresentation of fact. Here is the text of the Bill 1. Section 1021a states that detention ends with end of the conflict so the term is not indefinite. 2. Section 1021b defines a covered person as someone involved with the 911 attacks, al-Qaeda, Taliban or their supporters. I do net see how anyone could put Occupy protesters into any of those groups. 3. Here is 1021e "(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." Again US Citizens, lawful resident aliens, and any other persons who are captured or arrested in the Unites states still have rights as defined in the Bill of Rights. One of which is the right to a speedy trial.
There is a bit of am ambiguity in 1021e. It could have two meanings. Does it mean that the arrest of capture have to occur in the US for the existing laws or authorities to be in effect or does in mean that anybody, including non-citizens and illegal aliens, are still covered by existing laws if they are captured or arrested in the US and US citizens and lawful resident aliens are covered if they are captured ir arrested anywhere. I believe it means the latter.
In summary, the law signed by Obama has no effect on the Occupy protesters.
I never even mentioned the ADA directly. I never said it was irrational as a whole. In fact, as I said multiple times, I firmly believe that accommodations should be provided for people when possible and reasonable. What I did say is that people who look at the law need to be reasonable.
Considering that the "Bulshit" program's topic was the ADA and the lawyers are threatening ADA lawsuits what laws, other than the ADA, were you referring to as "irrational laws"? Who do you think should be the arbiter as to what accommodations are "possible and reasonable"? Should it be the business owner who's main concern is maximizing his profit and not the issues of disabled people? That is why we have laws like the ADA; they define what is "reasonable and possible".
Umm, some did succeed. That doesn't mean that they would succeed in all the places that it is threatened, but do you seriously think that no one has ever sued a business for an ADA violation and succeeded?
If by succeed you mean the target paid to make the plaintiff go away you would be correct. This is not how it is supposed to work as nothing gets fixed and the issue still exists. Why does this happen? Fear, ignorance and false thrift from the target. If by succeed you mean a business get threatened with a suit, fixes the situation and the lawsuit goes away, you are probably right. Since the issue is fixed I do not see a problem with that. If you mean a suit get filed in court, goes to trial,ruled in favour of the plaintiff and the issue fixed you are probably correct too. These cases are how the law is supposed to work as the accessibility issue is solved. The fact that it went to court is an issue with the business owner not complying with the law. If you mean a lawyer demanding money to go away, the case going to court and the lawyer being awarded his demands I see no evidence of that happening. This is what the lawyer was attempting to do to the town and what I was referring to. Many of these extortionist threats happened years ago and the regulations have recently changed so that the practice has almost completely disappeared. The fact that it did happen does not mean it is still happening.
I didn't generalize about the thoughts of all law enforcement from what I clearly identified as an "anecdote." Did you? I have more anecdotal accounts from friends if you'd like... but that wouldn't constitute evidence of what "all law enforcement" think, either.
Here is your original quote;" But when law enforcement is happier with cars stopped in hazardous No Parking zones rather than take up one of two empty handicapped spaces that are never used anyway, something's a little amiss." By not qualifying what you mean by "law enforcement" with words like "some", "few", "many", etc it semantically implies that you mean all law enforcement.
If I were to generalize about what was going on, it wouldn't be anything about the ADA, but rather about the potential for fine revenue. Either they were overly sensitive to the plight of the handicapped (possible) or they were paying closer attention to handicapped spots because of the greater fines involved (also possible, and quite likely). Probably both.
There is also a third alternative in that police in your city may be responsible for handicap parking violations while Parking Authority may be responsible for all other violations.
Sorry but the rest of you post is a tirade about unequal application of laws and has nothing to do with the topic of conversation which is the need for disabled parking spaces and the need for enforcement so they are available to disabled people.
Here are a few issues with the "solution"; 1. stair walking chairs are expensive and out of reach of many disabled persons on fixed income. I realize there is a burden on the building owner by a 1% one time increase is costs is easy to bear while a few months of income for a disabled person may not be. 2. Stair walking chairs are much more complex requiring increased maintenance and down time causing more of a financial burden and less available use. 3. Stair walking chairs are very sensitive to traction issues. Snow, Ice and even water will make them unusable. 4. Most stair walking chairs are very high when in climbing mode which makes them susceptible to tipping when windy or when jostled by crowds. 5. Ramps are not used exclusively by wheelchairs. People with walkers and canes often use the ramps as stairs can be painful or impossible. 6. People with mobility issues are not "edge cases". Anyone who reaches the age of 80 will probably have mobility issues and benefit from these kind of accommodations. A expensive high tech, finicky, unstable chairs that do not cover all issues is not the alternative to a simple low tech ramp that accommodates more mobility issues..
So the fact that a few able bodies people may have to wait a few minutes to find a space overrides the ability of a person in the wheelchair the ability to have a parking spot large enough to be able to get in and out of their vehicle? In the case of the able bodied person the issue is "I have to wait a few minutes". In the case of the person in the wheelchair it is "I have to go home".
The two comedians did not do any "investigation" at all. The took a few pictures of parking spots and ranted. They did no investigation into the ration of used regular spaces vs used disabled spots at various times of the day and year. Empty disabled spots is not a problem if there are regular spots are available or soon to be available. Even if the lot is full a few empty disabled spots is not an issue.
There is also a big difference between suing someone to fix an issue and threatening to sue someone if they do not pay them. The former can be a good thing; the latter is mearly extortion and fixes nothing.
So a couple of lawyers misuse a law to extort money and couple of police officers do not completely apply the traffic laws has nothing at all to do with the value of the ADA. The fact that the ADA requires parking spots large enough to allow someone in a wheelchair enough room to get in and out of a vehicle is a good thing.
Any law can be misused but that does not mean that the law is irrational. Are rape laws irrational just because they are some times used by jilted lovers to effect revenge? No. It is not the ADA that is the problem it is the lawyers who extort money from people and the people who would rather knuckle under than band together and fight that are the problems. Since none of these "cases" have even been filed there is no way to know that they would ever succeed. I bet if someone who was warned looked hard enough he could find someone to work probono on the case. There is also a case for suing the lawyer for harassment and extortion. They could also file a complaint with the Bar for unethical practices and the lawyers may be disbarred.
Generalizing the thoughts of all law enforcement from the actions of two officers is not valid. The thing that "is amiss" the the two officers and not the laws.
There is a huge difference between parking places and toilet stalls. Parking spaces are designated for disabled people because that allow access to the buildings and it is against the law for someone without a disabled parking permit to park there. Toilet stall are about accommodating disabilities and providing access to needed facilities. There is no law against an able bodied person using a stall that is designed for disabled access. The main difference being that a disabled person can wait their turn for a stall but may not be able to get into the building if they can not get in and out of their vehicle; waiting is much different that not having access.
The fact that the committee that you were on designed a stupid washroom may not be an issue with the legislation but with the committee's interpretation. It appears that every stall was designed to be wheelchair accessible. I checked a few building codes and most of them stated at least one stall must be accessible. In none did I see a requirement that all stalls be accessible.
Here are exerpts from the ADA; "4.22.4 Water Closets. If toilet stalls are provided, then at least one shall be a standard toilet stall complying with 4.17; where 6 or more stalls are provided, in addition to the stall complying with 4.17.3, at least one stall 36 in (915 mm) wide with an outward swinging, self-closing door and parallel grab bars complying with Fig. 30(d) and 4.26 shall be provided. Water closets in such stalls shall comply with 4.16. If water closets are not in stalls, then at least one shall comply with 4.16." Therefore complete requirements would be filled by two larger stalls and not all 6.
The parking issue is yet another isse with the design and not the rules. take a look at this. The requirements would be covered by one van accessible spot. The second spot is not required by the ADA. The fact that the average user is 22 and healthy does not mean that there are not at least a few users who would benefit from the accommodations. Access is not a question of averages but of people with issues.
The Bullshit episode is itself Bullshit. Lets go through a few points. 1. Can we legislate compassion? No. Legislation can codify individual right as seen by those with compassion. For those without compassion it changes the decision from "is it the right thing to do" to "will I be penalized if I don't". The ADA is there for the people without compassion and/or understanding of the issues that disabled people deal with every day. Laws are not there for the average person; they are there to codify what is unacceptable.
2. The show focused on parking spaces and chastised the ADA for "inflating the number of people with disabilities". The ADA covers many more issues than physical access. We all know about the issues with web sites and accessibility.
3. When showing empty disabled parking spaces the camera never pans around to the rest of the parking lot to see how empty the rest of the lot is. Too many disabled spots is only an issue if the rest of the lot is full.
4. The farce with the iron lung just stupid. People in iron lungs do not go out and parading one around the street is ludicrous. They keep asking "Where do we draw the line?". We draw the line at wheelchairs and scooters as they are commonly used by people to interact with society. They seem to imply that since we can not accommodate all disabilities we do not need to accommodate any disabilities. That is completely false logic. We accommodate what is reasonable in a compassionate mind.
5. They talk about making everyone equal; excellent distortion. No two people are absolutely equal as they point out. It is not about being equal but about equal access. If we can create equal access with ramps and special parking spots I say we do it.
6. The say that if one company does not provide equal access then someone else down the street will. They are correct that accessibility changes cost money. When a company installs these attributes their prices will go up. Therefore because one company has enough compassion to accommodate disabilities they are now less economically viable. By legislating those accommodations all companies have a level playing field.
7. The fact that one disabled lawyer threatened an entire town with lawsuits has nothing to do with the usefulness of the ADA. It is simply misuse of the law and we have no idea whether or not any of the threatened suits would ever get to court or be ruled in favour of. By that logic we should strike down rape laws because there are several well documented cases of rape charges being filed by jilted lovers. Every law can be misused but that does not mean that the law is bad.
8. Finally and most importantly they use the definition of disability and imply that anyone with any disability would qualify for a disabled parking permit. That is completely false. this is the application form in California for a disabled parking permit. Notice that all the qualifications concern physical limitations that interfere with mobility. So no, someone with dyslexia would not get a disabled parking permit.
I worked at a business cellular call centre a while back and got a call from an average customer. I fixed his rather common issue though it took some time. I treated him like I treat everyone who called me; quickly, courteously and efficiently. When the issue was dealt with the customer mentioned that his brother was the president of the company and was thinking about moving to another cellular provider due to the poor service. He then stated that, considering the service he received from me, he thought the service was getting better and he would talk to his brother. I checked and found that I may have save the company a contract worth a couple hundred thousand dollars per year merely by doing my job by treating everyone as well as I can.
When you have contact with customers treat everyone as well as you can because the person in front of you a) deserves it and b) may influence a big customer. (The most important part of that is the a part)
Considering that your "homemade independant move" has a projected revenue of Jack and Shit there is a huge difference. Also the studio's lawyers have nothing to do with this prosecution; it was the FBI. Now if they had sued the guy then the "endless lawyers" issue would fit. If the police do not procecute ever such offence then the law becomes unenforceable. There is a term called selective prosecution. One never want to go to court where a defence attourney can show where someone was not prosecuted for doing something but their client was for doing the same thing.
One of the resons for encarceration is deterant. With this prosecution being given so much puplicity maybe others will think twice before uploading pre-release movies.
No harm? Even you say "probably" when referring to lost revenue. So there is possibly lost revenue. No intent? If the person didn't know there was a law against distributing copyright material he should. His intent was to spread the video around which is against the law. No Crime? The fact that he broke the law makes it a crime. For example a speeder. He has not been in or caused an accident so not harm. His intent is to get to where he is going faster, not break the law, so no intent. No harm, no intent but still a crime.
And according to the article, "An F.B.I. spokeswoman said the investigation into who stole the movie in the first place was continuing", still being looked for.
RTFA, "An F.B.I. spokeswoman said the investigation into who stole the movie in the first place was continuing." The found the person who uploaded the stolen video to a sharing site. That was a criminal act so the prosecuted him. That does not mean that they are not still investigating the situation and are not looking for other people in the chain of custody. Should they not have persecuted him because he was not the only person in the chain?
There is also a huge difference between a few DVDs available in person at a few select locations and an uploaded file available to anyone with an internet connection. The latter has a much wider audience, is easier to find and has much more impact on the revenue for the film. They are going after the "right" person as the uploader did far more damage than the DVD supplier.
Are they not bound by the same inverse square law as normal magnets?
Yes they are but they have a much stronger starting point. Most flexible magnets can barely hold up one sheet of paper. Add another layer and the papers fall. A rare earth magnet is much stronger to start with and can be much further away from the steel before it's strength drops too low. Think of it like a light bulb. A 1W bulb does not light very much area. A 50 W bulb lights much further. Say you need a certain lumin level to read by.That level may be only a few inches from the 1W bulb but many more feet from the 50W bulb. Light and magnetism both follow the inverse square law.
True, I do mean very strong for their size but size is important in many applications not just disk drives. Those construction toys would not work with regular magnets. The magnet size would need to increase to get similar holding strength. To maintain surface contact with the larger magnet the size of the steel balls would have to increase which would require more magnetic strength to hold them which would require bigger magnets and the loop continues. Holding large weights with small magnets requires rare earth magnets.
Take a look at this incident. The autopilot did everything right except that lack of action, poor decision making and disorientation by the pilots caused a 747 to roll out of control. The pilots did the following things wrong; 1. Failed to descend to correct altitude before attempting engine restart. 2. Failed to notice the extreme inputs the autopilot was using that did not correct the roll(the pilot should have used some rudder to help the autopilot) 3. Became fixated on the engine issue when he should have left it to the copilot and flight engineer. 4. Failed to trust instruments when he had no visual reference (they were in the clouds) 5. Failed to take flight control when limitations if the autopilot (it could not control the rudder) reduced it's ability to control the aircraft. This is an example where the computer made the right decision but wrong decisions by a human caused an accident.
Slashdot Mirror
"deported"
By this logic anyone who's visa has run out and left any country had been "deported". Someone higher up than the head of the State run University decided that they did not want an activist working for the Government and had him fired. His visa was no longer valid so he left the country. No member of the security apparatus, read police office, immigration officer, soldier, etc, told him to leave; that would have been deportation. I was not aware that the head of a University was part of the security apparatus.
"forced to flee"
For someone to be "forced to flee" required "force" to be applied directly to that person to induce them to "flee". Had a member of the security apparatus told him "Leave or bed things will happen" I would see that as force. I do not consider the head of a university advising he leave as soon as possible as "force"; advice? sure but force? no.
Had the article been posted as "Australian's visa revoked in Bahrain over Facebook Posts" and the line in the summary changed to " Mitchell was eventually fired, evicted, and advised to flee because of posts he made on Facebook." Those are both accurate statements without exaggerating the situation.
Mr. Mitchell was not;
1. "deported" His job ended so he probably no longer had a valid work visa
2. "forced to flee". He was advides by his ex-boss to leave as soon as possible. He could have refused and stayed until he something happened.
How about a little truth in reporting. The issue is bad enough as it is without throwing falsehoods on top.
If it is true it is possible that the conversation went something like this;
Buyer: the seller sent me bogus merchandise and I want a refund.
PP: Send it back and provide proof of reciept and we will refund the money.
Buyer: No, I do not want to aid in the duping of the next unsuspecting buyer by sending the item back.
PP; We can not allow you to keep both the item and the refund so the only option would be for you to destroy the item, provide proof and we will refund.
I am not saying this is right but is within the TOS.
Actually it is not so far-fetched as you may think as it has worked in Northern Ireland. The IORA was a terrorist organization, disarmed and is now a legetemite part of the Northern Ireland Government. They have recognised leaders so anyone else who calls themselves OIRA can be denounced as not part of their organization as has happened with the PIRA, the CIRA and the RIRA. So as it stands Great Brittain and the OIRA are no longer at war even though other, smaller organizations containing ex-members of the OIRA are still active. Same thing could work with al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
Where in the article you cite does anyone make allegations that the Government is doing anything illegal? All they allege is that the Government is keeping certain things secret by making misleading statements.
Actually the war with al-Qaeda and the Taliban is not indefinite. It is up to the US government to declare when the war is at end. If the Taliban and al-Qaeda made statements that they were ceasing operations, denied involvement in any subsequent actions and assisted authorities in apprehending still active terrorists the US Government would be hard pressed to convince anyone that a state of war still exists. Will the terrorists do that? Probably not but the ball in in their court.
As for detainees, there is a provision in 1021f that states "The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘covered persons’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2)." This will probably be the Defense Subcommittee. I will bet that there will be people on that subcommittee that will demand proof that the person held is covered under (b)(2). It makes great news when the opposition can show that the Party in power is stupid or is "trampling on people's rights". The burden of proof in in the Defense Department not the detainee.
Are the Constitution and Bill of Rights "existing law". Do those laws have stipulations related to due process and illegal confinement? By Section 1021 E do those laws still apply to " United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States"? The answer is yes to all three. This law does not suspend any existing laws for " United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States". Now non-US citizens and people without lawful resident alien status captures or arrested outside the US have never been covered by US law and may be detained until end of conflict.
Sorry but misleading statements about what the government is doing is very different from the Government breaking the law.
I have thought about it and I will repeat myself; an able bodied person will need to wait a few minutes or park further away while a wheelchair bound person will have to go home if there is not a space available. The issue isn't when the lot is empty it is when it is full. The requirements for a lot with 100 spaces is 4. Say the average person takes 30 minutes in the store. If the requirements are met a disabled spot will come up every 7.5 minutes and a regular spot will come up every 19 seconds. Say the number of required spots was cut in half to 2. The wait time for a handicap spot would be 15 minutes while the wait time for a regular spot would be 18 seconds. So reducing the number of disabled spots by half you have save each able bodied driver one second. If there were no disabled spots the mobility impaired driver would have to go home; he can not get out of his van while an able bodied driver would wait 18 seconds. No difference to the able bodied driver and in-access to the mobility impaired driver. Not much benefit for such a loss to disabled people. I say again one or two spots in a crowed lot is not going to make much of a difference to able bodied drivers but is very important to mobility impaired drivers.
To those who say that they could be parking in that spot instead of driving around I say that that spot would probably have been taken by the other able bodied person who saw it two minutes ago and you would still be in the same spot and you convenience is outweighed by the needs of the mobility impaired driver that may arrive in the next few minutes.
From the article; "Late last year, president Obama signed a law that makes it possible to indefinitely detain terrorist suspects without any form of trial or due process. Peaceful protesters in Occupy movements all over the world have been labelled as terrorists by the authorities."
It seems to imply that the law signed by Obama would allow indefinite detention of Occupy movement protesters. This is a gross misrepresentation of fact. Here is the text of the Bill
1. Section 1021a states that detention ends with end of the conflict so the term is not indefinite.
2. Section 1021b defines a covered person as someone involved with the 911 attacks, al-Qaeda, Taliban or their supporters. I do net see how anyone could put Occupy protesters into any of those groups.
3. Here is 1021e
"(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." Again US Citizens, lawful resident aliens, and any other persons who are captured or arrested in the Unites states still have rights as defined in the Bill of Rights. One of which is the right to a speedy trial.
There is a bit of am ambiguity in 1021e. It could have two meanings. Does it mean that the arrest of capture have to occur in the US for the existing laws or authorities to be in effect or does in mean that anybody, including non-citizens and illegal aliens, are still covered by existing laws if they are captured or arrested in the US and US citizens and lawful resident aliens are covered if they are captured ir arrested anywhere. I believe it means the latter.
In summary, the law signed by Obama has no effect on the Occupy protesters.
I never even mentioned the ADA directly. I never said it was irrational as a whole. In fact, as I said multiple times, I firmly believe that accommodations should be provided for people when possible and reasonable. What I did say is that people who look at the law need to be reasonable.
Considering that the "Bulshit" program's topic was the ADA and the lawyers are threatening ADA lawsuits what laws, other than the ADA, were you referring to as "irrational laws"? Who do you think should be the arbiter as to what accommodations are "possible and reasonable"? Should it be the business owner who's main concern is maximizing his profit and not the issues of disabled people? That is why we have laws like the ADA; they define what is "reasonable and possible".
Umm, some did succeed. That doesn't mean that they would succeed in all the places that it is threatened, but do you seriously think that no one has ever sued a business for an ADA violation and succeeded?
If by succeed you mean the target paid to make the plaintiff go away you would be correct. This is not how it is supposed to work as nothing gets fixed and the issue still exists. Why does this happen? Fear, ignorance and false thrift from the target. If by succeed you mean a business get threatened with a suit, fixes the situation and the lawsuit goes away, you are probably right. Since the issue is fixed I do not see a problem with that. If you mean a suit get filed in court, goes to trial,ruled in favour of the plaintiff and the issue fixed you are probably correct too. These cases are how the law is supposed to work as the accessibility issue is solved. The fact that it went to court is an issue with the business owner not complying with the law. If you mean a lawyer demanding money to go away, the case going to court and the lawyer being awarded his demands I see no evidence of that happening. This is what the lawyer was attempting to do to the town and what I was referring to.
Many of these extortionist threats happened years ago and the regulations have recently changed so that the practice has almost completely disappeared. The fact that it did happen does not mean it is still happening.
I didn't generalize about the thoughts of all law enforcement from what I clearly identified as an "anecdote." Did you? I have more anecdotal accounts from friends if you'd like... but that wouldn't constitute evidence of what "all law enforcement" think, either.
Here is your original quote;" But when law enforcement is happier with cars stopped in hazardous No Parking zones rather than take up one of two empty handicapped spaces that are never used anyway, something's a little amiss." By not qualifying what you mean by "law enforcement" with words like "some", "few", "many", etc it semantically implies that you mean all law enforcement.
If I were to generalize about what was going on, it wouldn't be anything about the ADA, but rather about the potential for fine revenue. Either they were overly sensitive to the plight of the handicapped (possible) or they were paying closer attention to handicapped spots because of the greater fines involved (also possible, and quite likely). Probably both.
There is also a third alternative in that police in your city may be responsible for handicap parking violations while Parking Authority may be responsible for all other violations.
Sorry but the rest of you post is a tirade about unequal application of laws and has nothing to do with the topic of conversation which is the need for disabled parking spaces and the need for enforcement so they are available to disabled people.
Here are a few issues with the "solution";
1. stair walking chairs are expensive and out of reach of many disabled persons on fixed income. I realize there is a burden on the building owner by a 1% one time increase is costs is easy to bear while a few months of income for a disabled person may not be.
2. Stair walking chairs are much more complex requiring increased maintenance and down time causing more of a financial burden and less available use.
3. Stair walking chairs are very sensitive to traction issues. Snow, Ice and even water will make them unusable.
4. Most stair walking chairs are very high when in climbing mode which makes them susceptible to tipping when windy or when jostled by crowds.
5. Ramps are not used exclusively by wheelchairs. People with walkers and canes often use the ramps as stairs can be painful or impossible.
6. People with mobility issues are not "edge cases". Anyone who reaches the age of 80 will probably have mobility issues and benefit from these kind of accommodations.
A expensive high tech, finicky, unstable chairs that do not cover all issues is not the alternative to a simple low tech ramp that accommodates more mobility issues..
So the fact that a few able bodies people may have to wait a few minutes to find a space overrides the ability of a person in the wheelchair the ability to have a parking spot large enough to be able to get in and out of their vehicle? In the case of the able bodied person the issue is "I have to wait a few minutes". In the case of the person in the wheelchair it is "I have to go home".
The two comedians did not do any "investigation" at all. The took a few pictures of parking spots and ranted. They did no investigation into the ration of used regular spaces vs used disabled spots at various times of the day and year. Empty disabled spots is not a problem if there are regular spots are available or soon to be available. Even if the lot is full a few empty disabled spots is not an issue.
There is also a big difference between suing someone to fix an issue and threatening to sue someone if they do not pay them. The former can be a good thing; the latter is mearly extortion and fixes nothing.
So a couple of lawyers misuse a law to extort money and couple of police officers do not completely apply the traffic laws has nothing at all to do with the value of the ADA. The fact that the ADA requires parking spots large enough to allow someone in a wheelchair enough room to get in and out of a vehicle is a good thing.
Any law can be misused but that does not mean that the law is irrational. Are rape laws irrational just because they are some times used by jilted lovers to effect revenge? No. It is not the ADA that is the problem it is the lawyers who extort money from people and the people who would rather knuckle under than band together and fight that are the problems. Since none of these "cases" have even been filed there is no way to know that they would ever succeed. I bet if someone who was warned looked hard enough he could find someone to work probono on the case. There is also a case for suing the lawyer for harassment and extortion. They could also file a complaint with the Bar for unethical practices and the lawyers may be disbarred.
Generalizing the thoughts of all law enforcement from the actions of two officers is not valid. The thing that "is amiss" the the two officers and not the laws.
There is a huge difference between parking places and toilet stalls. Parking spaces are designated for disabled people because that allow access to the buildings and it is against the law for someone without a disabled parking permit to park there. Toilet stall are about accommodating disabilities and providing access to needed facilities. There is no law against an able bodied person using a stall that is designed for disabled access. The main difference being that a disabled person can wait their turn for a stall but may not be able to get into the building if they can not get in and out of their vehicle; waiting is much different that not having access.
The fact that the committee that you were on designed a stupid washroom may not be an issue with the legislation but with the committee's interpretation. It appears that every stall was designed to be wheelchair accessible. I checked a few building codes and most of them stated at least one stall must be accessible. In none did I see a requirement that all stalls be accessible.
Here are exerpts from the ADA;
"4.22.4 Water Closets. If toilet stalls are provided, then at least one shall be a standard toilet stall complying with 4.17; where 6 or more stalls are provided, in addition to the stall complying with 4.17.3, at least one stall 36 in (915 mm) wide with an outward swinging, self-closing door and parallel grab bars complying with Fig. 30(d) and 4.26 shall be provided. Water closets in such stalls shall comply with 4.16. If water closets are not in stalls, then at least one shall comply with 4.16."
Therefore complete requirements would be filled by two larger stalls and not all 6.
The parking issue is yet another isse with the design and not the rules. take a look at this. The requirements would be covered by one van accessible spot. The second spot is not required by the ADA. The fact that the average user is 22 and healthy does not mean that there are not at least a few users who would benefit from the accommodations. Access is not a question of averages but of people with issues.
The Bullshit episode is itself Bullshit. Lets go through a few points.
1. Can we legislate compassion? No. Legislation can codify individual right as seen by those with compassion. For those without compassion it changes the decision from "is it the right thing to do" to "will I be penalized if I don't". The ADA is there for the people without compassion and/or understanding of the issues that disabled people deal with every day. Laws are not there for the average person; they are there to codify what is unacceptable.
2. The show focused on parking spaces and chastised the ADA for "inflating the number of people with disabilities". The ADA covers many more issues than physical access. We all know about the issues with web sites and accessibility.
3. When showing empty disabled parking spaces the camera never pans around to the rest of the parking lot to see how empty the rest of the lot is. Too many disabled spots is only an issue if the rest of the lot is full.
4. The farce with the iron lung just stupid. People in iron lungs do not go out and parading one around the street is ludicrous. They keep asking "Where do we draw the line?". We draw the line at wheelchairs and scooters as they are commonly used by people to interact with society. They seem to imply that since we can not accommodate all disabilities we do not need to accommodate any disabilities. That is completely false logic. We accommodate what is reasonable in a compassionate mind.
5. They talk about making everyone equal; excellent distortion. No two people are absolutely equal as they point out. It is not about being equal but about equal access. If we can create equal access with ramps and special parking spots I say we do it.
6. The say that if one company does not provide equal access then someone else down the street will. They are correct that accessibility changes cost money. When a company installs these attributes their prices will go up. Therefore because one company has enough compassion to accommodate disabilities they are now less economically viable. By legislating those accommodations all companies have a level playing field.
7. The fact that one disabled lawyer threatened an entire town with lawsuits has nothing to do with the usefulness of the ADA. It is simply misuse of the law and we have no idea whether or not any of the threatened suits would ever get to court or be ruled in favour of. By that logic we should strike down rape laws because there are several well documented cases of rape charges being filed by jilted lovers. Every law can be misused but that does not mean that the law is bad.
8. Finally and most importantly they use the definition of disability and imply that anyone with any disability would qualify for a disabled parking permit. That is completely false. this is the application form in California for a disabled parking permit. Notice that all the qualifications concern physical limitations that interfere with mobility. So no, someone with dyslexia would not get a disabled parking permit.
I worked at a business cellular call centre a while back and got a call from an average customer. I fixed his rather common issue though it took some time. I treated him like I treat everyone who called me; quickly, courteously and efficiently. When the issue was dealt with the customer mentioned that his brother was the president of the company and was thinking about moving to another cellular provider due to the poor service. He then stated that, considering the service he received from me, he thought the service was getting better and he would talk to his brother. I checked and found that I may have save the company a contract worth a couple hundred thousand dollars per year merely by doing my job by treating everyone as well as I can.
When you have contact with customers treat everyone as well as you can because the person in front of you a) deserves it and b) may influence a big customer. (The most important part of that is the a part)
You might want to understand the false logic of Morton's Fork before making arguments like this.
There is a third option; Pickpockets and murders both go to jail for a time comenseate with the crime. I would prefer to live in that society.
Considering that your "homemade independant move" has a projected revenue of Jack and Shit there is a huge difference. Also the studio's lawyers have nothing to do with this prosecution; it was the FBI. Now if they had sued the guy then the "endless lawyers" issue would fit. If the police do not procecute ever such offence then the law becomes unenforceable. There is a term called selective prosecution. One never want to go to court where a defence attourney can show where someone was not prosecuted for doing something but their client was for doing the same thing.
One of the resons for encarceration is deterant. With this prosecution being given so much puplicity maybe others will think twice before uploading pre-release movies.
No harm? Even you say "probably" when referring to lost revenue. So there is possibly lost revenue.
No intent? If the person didn't know there was a law against distributing copyright material he should. His intent was to spread the video around which is against the law.
No Crime? The fact that he broke the law makes it a crime. For example a speeder. He has not been in or caused an accident so not harm. His intent is to get to where he is going faster, not break the law, so no intent. No harm, no intent but still a crime.
So because we don not prosecute the big bad guys we should not prosecute the little bad guys? Sorry that is false logic
And according to the article, "An F.B.I. spokeswoman said the investigation into who stole the movie in the first place was continuing", still being looked for.
RTFA, "An F.B.I. spokeswoman said the investigation into who stole the movie in the first place was continuing." The found the person who uploaded the stolen video to a sharing site. That was a criminal act so the prosecuted him. That does not mean that they are not still investigating the situation and are not looking for other people in the chain of custody. Should they not have persecuted him because he was not the only person in the chain?
There is also a huge difference between a few DVDs available in person at a few select locations and an uploaded file available to anyone with an internet connection. The latter has a much wider audience, is easier to find and has much more impact on the revenue for the film. They are going after the "right" person as the uploader did far more damage than the DVD supplier.
Are they not bound by the same inverse square law as normal magnets?
Yes they are but they have a much stronger starting point. Most flexible magnets can barely hold up one sheet of paper. Add another layer and the papers fall. A rare earth magnet is much stronger to start with and can be much further away from the steel before it's strength drops too low. Think of it like a light bulb. A 1W bulb does not light very much area. A 50 W bulb lights much further. Say you need a certain lumin level to read by.That level may be only a few inches from the 1W bulb but many more feet from the 50W bulb. Light and magnetism both follow the inverse square law.
True, I do mean very strong for their size but size is important in many applications not just disk drives. Those construction toys would not work with regular magnets. The magnet size would need to increase to get similar holding strength. To maintain surface contact with the larger magnet the size of the steel balls would have to increase which would require more magnetic strength to hold them which would require bigger magnets and the loop continues. Holding large weights with small magnets requires rare earth magnets.
Take a look at this incident. The autopilot did everything right except that lack of action, poor decision making and disorientation by the pilots caused a 747 to roll out of control.
The pilots did the following things wrong;
1. Failed to descend to correct altitude before attempting engine restart.
2. Failed to notice the extreme inputs the autopilot was using that did not correct the roll(the pilot should have used some rudder to help the autopilot)
3. Became fixated on the engine issue when he should have left it to the copilot and flight engineer.
4. Failed to trust instruments when he had no visual reference (they were in the clouds)
5. Failed to take flight control when limitations if the autopilot (it could not control the rudder) reduced it's ability to control the aircraft.
This is an example where the computer made the right decision but wrong decisions by a human caused an accident.