Just because some states had segregation didn't mean it was good. Seems to me letting some states deny voting to ex-felons is very wrong. If the feds can correct that, yay.
The difference between letting a state decide who can vote, or if alcohol can be sold on Sundays, is that I can choose to never visit the state if I want to buy booze on Sundays. However that state gets votes in Congress, which will effect me.
In spite of some politicians. They're not all bad. They do sometimes make laws that move civilization forward. Other times they're behind the times and catching the law up.
So are you saying the sins of the good guys excuse the sins of the bad guys?
Obviously I'm saying that eminent domain isn't always a sin. Rationing and government intereference I'm sure saved many American lives by providing the military with what it needed.
As for humanity, without the individual, there are still more humans around. Depending on my meaning, without humanity there are either no humans at all, or there are no more civilizations because without humanity civilations would not function. Civilization is far more important and thus the group is more important.
If the group is indeed preeminent, explain why minorities have rights! If the wants of the group is sufficient justification to take property from one person to give it to the larger group, then why isn't it equally justified to take the property of the racial minority and give it to the racially dominant majority?
Will the minorities get just compensation? When the indians got Oklahoma, that was not just. More importantly, when is there likely to be a reason good enough to use eminent domain on a racial minority? I can't think of one. But I can tell you that if a city needs to widen a road to relieve gridlock, that is good enough.
If you'd bothered to read some of my other replies to other people you'd have seen I'm all in favor of JUST compensation, so the $500 is now $50,000. Read what else I've said nearby and you'll understand why you're a fucking moron for wasting your time.
I looked briefly at the link, decided you were joking if you thought I'd read all that, then checked at dictionary.com what the definition of "plunder" is. Sure enough, plundering is taking without giving just compensation. So please stop with that argument.
How about the law be changed so property taken couldn't be given or leased to private parties? When a loophole is found, close it. If another is found, close that one. We don't scrap the tax code just because there are loopholes, we close them. We don't go with a flat tax perhaps because it has downsides that are worse than closing the loopholes in what we have.
Example of life being complicated: 30+ years ago a now 74-year-old woman immigrated illegally to the USA from Central America after her husband died, all three of her children died while young, and her brother was murdered. She worked here as a nanny and jobs like those. She spend the last of her money a few years ago on a bus ticket to come to San Francisco to be a nanny. The man who was going to hire her never showed up at the bus terminal. A worker at the terminal took her to a shelter where she's been ever since. She wants to work, but the rules and regulations say she can't until her immigration status is dealt with. She's applied to become a citizen over many years, but to no avail. So today, she wants to work but can't while she gets benefits from the shelter. If she's deported she'll probably quickly suffer and die, as there are fewer shelters and resources south of the border. The cold and callous options don't sit well with me because she wants to be productive. So the rules should be modified either for all cases like hers, or to allow exceptions. The very loopholes you don't like, but I say are sometimes necessary.
To ignore loopholes altogether, how about the law simply say eminent domain is only allowed for building public roads that connect to ungated communities within city boundaries, and also for public buildings. Changes to the law can be made later.
The problem with your argument about corruptible politicians is you're trying to stop their effects instead of stopping the causes of the corruption. That's why we have checks and balances, to stop a cause of corruption, namely, power.
As for the cause, what corrupts politicians? Money? Where does the money come from? Corporations? Then get a constitutional amendment that declares corporations do not have the rights of a person. (Do you know it was a clerical error in the 1890's that started that bullshit in the first place?)
I looked briefly at the link, decided you were joking if you thought I'd read all that, then checked at dictionary.com what the definition of "plunder" is. Sure enough, plundering is taking without giving just compensation. So please stop with that argument.
How about the law be changed so property taken couldn't be given or leased to private parties? When a loophole is found, close it. If another is found, close that one. We don't scrap the tax code just because there are loopholes, we close them. We don't go with a flat tax perhaps because it has downsides that are worse than closing the loopholes in what we have.
Example of life being complicated: 30+ years ago a now 74-year-old woman immigrated illegally to the USA from Central America after her husband died, all three of her children died while young, and her brother was murdered. She worked here as a nanny and jobs like those. She spend the last of her money a few years ago on a bus ticket to come to San Francisco to be a nanny. The man who was going to hire her never showed up at the bus terminal. A worker at the terminal took her to a shelter where she's been ever since. She wants to work, but the rules and regulations say she can't until her immigration status is dealt with. She's applied to become a citizen over many years, but to no avail. So today, she wants to work but can't while she gets benefits from the shelter. If she's deported she'll probably quickly suffer and die, as there are fewer shelters and resources south of the border. The cold and callous options don't sit well with me because she wants to be productive. So the rules should be modified either for all cases like hers, or to allow exceptions. The very loopholes you don't like, but I say are sometimes necessary.
To ignore loopholes altogether, how about the law simply say eminent domain is only allowed for building public roads that connect to ungated communities within city boundaries, and also for public buildings. Changes to the law can be made later.
The problem with your argument about corruptible politicians is you're trying to stop their effects instead of stopping the causes of the corruption. That's why we have checks and balances, to stop a cause of corruption, namely, power.
As for the cause, what corrupts politicians? Money? Where does the money come from? Corporations? Then get a constitutional amendment that declares corporations do not have the rights of a person. (Do you know it was a clerical error in the 1890's that started that bullshit in the first place?)
"The ends justify the means" is much more concise.
Oh I agree, but it creates a different mental image in peoples' heads. Someone else replied and complained that governments often don't justly compensate for the property taken. I agree that just compensation should be required. The current implementaion of eminent domain is flawed, but fixing it doesn't mean getting rid of it entirely.
Politicians and philosophers have got us this far over three millennia. I have confidence that given time things will continue to improve. Or do you think civilzation peaked say, around 1850?
So restrict the power of eminent domain in the same manner that it was established. Is eminent domain in the Federal or State constitutions? Or is it a completely false construct?
The second amendment could have read:
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms for a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, , shall not be infringed."
And it would have carried as much weight as the actual version does. It would have allowed states to ban guns to non militia members.
In this way eminent domain can be codified. As for how to define it, I'm sure there must be some way to phrase it, as lawyers have made many good laws with difficult speech and concepts. As an example, when this amendment is written, we should all lobby our congresscritters and tell them we don't want governments to be able to take property from one private party and then give it to another one. Only government use should be allowed.
The person I replied to called eminent domain "truly evil." It clearly isn't always.
What's good for developers isn't necessarily related to what's good for humanity. So change the law to stop eminent domain being used for developers private projects. As John Adams said, we must have a government of laws and not men.
So what? There was rationing and government interference during WWII and probably WWI, though I'm not familiar with that history. Just because tyrants and dicators used sound logic methods used by better governments doesn't mean the methods are bad.
Besides, if it really does help humanity, and a few people have their property taken, with actually just compensation, then it's for the best.
Businesses and corporations tend to own and make the stuff the war effort needs. Corporations generally don't have feelings. See Halliburton as a nice example of greed.
That's where carefully crafted legislation comes in. There is a balance to be struck, and finding it isn't easy. Thus the law should err on the side of the property owners.
Yet I can say for certain that when the USA is fighting one or more official armies of nation(s), and a majority of the American public approves this war effort, that scarce goods or land may be taken from individuals, with compensation, when those items are critical for saving thousands of American lives or winning the war.
Except you're comparing a parking lot, to help a private business and increase tax revenue, to producing drugs more cheaply to save lives and save money for States to spend elsewhere.
I only know about the New Haven case from the two comments related to my post. I don't know enough about it, but on the surface, it does seem like an especially flimsy case the city put together.
I don't know if I support eminent domain taken that far, but the grandparent called it "truly evil," and I absolutely disagree with that. There are some cases that are clear where the good of humanity should allow it.
When it comes to drug prices, I think Canada has struck a reasonable balance. The prices for drugs there bring in enough revenue for the companies to earn a profit, and still have money to invest in R&D.
Eminent domain isn't truly evil to me because I believe the world doesn't revolve around you. Or myself. Or that we should be so selfish and give ourselves such high priority in life. We should be more concerned about what is good for humanity.
Except that in a large theater I like to sit about 7 to 10 rows from the front. That way the screen approximately fills my field of view. It's more immersive than sitting in the middle-to-back. Sitting that close I clearly see the grain and blur, though I do my best to ignore them so I can enjoy the flick. I saw The Phantom Menace on a big screen at 1280x1024 and even if I'd been sitting in the middle I would have seen the pixels. I agree with the others who think this is just HDTV on a small-to-medium-sized screen. Yawn.
Does anyone know if Blu-ray or HD-DVD movies will be compressed as 1920x1024 24fps PROGRESSIVE? Then decompressed by the player and interlaced as needed? I'll be rather disappointed if they're stored in 720p. Assuming they do ship as 1024p, I'll be buying my own projector and screen for a few thousand and only see a handful of movies in an actual theater.
Aside from the fact that the CEO of Sega America made some incredibly retarded decisions, by far the biggest mistake Sega made was releasing the 32X. Support for the Sega CD declined. Then a few games that used the Sega CD and 32X came out. Then only a year after the 32X came out, the Saturn was released. Gamers and publishers got burned all around. The Saturn was hard to program, but potentially more powerful than the Playstation. If gamers and publishers hadn't sworn off Sega, the console would have had higher sales and games available.
The Game Gear was released in 1990. The Sega CD was 1991, but the 32X wasn't until 1993. The Game Gear failed because of poor battery life and a higher price. Solving those would have increased sales and publisher support, which would have raised sales. Also, I don't think the Game Gear was a failure. Games were made for it for at least three years. The Jungle Book and The Lion King were some of the last games for it in 1994. It didn't unseat the GameBoy, but I'm sure it made money for Sega and the publishers who released quality games.
Except that Blizzard could if they wanted to set the account to inactive, and remove the key from the account. That user would have to purchase a new key to play again.
6 months? HA! Mac hardware improves pathetically slow compared to x86. What the hell is gonna change in 6 months necessitating 1GB? I bought my 1.2GHz Athlon with 512MB and Win2k. A box with 512 and WinXP is still serviceable. Personally I'd get a Gig. Now for a Mac mini, which is slow but the OS needs less memory, I'd still get 512.
To eventually use computer hardware and software that's too well known and vulnerable? It's the Praetorians from The Net. They want to get their Gatekeeper software onto all military hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
Well said. I agree.
Just because some states had segregation didn't mean it was good. Seems to me letting some states deny voting to ex-felons is very wrong. If the feds can correct that, yay.
The difference between letting a state decide who can vote, or if alcohol can be sold on Sundays, is that I can choose to never visit the state if I want to buy booze on Sundays. However that state gets votes in Congress, which will effect me.
EX-felon voting. It's on page 56 of the pdf. Only those who have served their sentences and are not on parole or probation may vote.
In spite of some politicians. They're not all bad. They do sometimes make laws that move civilization forward. Other times they're behind the times and catching the law up.
So are you saying the sins of the good guys excuse the sins of the bad guys?
Obviously I'm saying that eminent domain isn't always a sin. Rationing and government intereference I'm sure saved many American lives by providing the military with what it needed.
As for humanity, without the individual, there are still more humans around. Depending on my meaning, without humanity there are either no humans at all, or there are no more civilizations because without humanity civilations would not function. Civilization is far more important and thus the group is more important.
If the group is indeed preeminent, explain why minorities have rights! If the wants of the group is sufficient justification to take property from one person to give it to the larger group, then why isn't it equally justified to take the property of the racial minority and give it to the racially dominant majority?
Will the minorities get just compensation? When the indians got Oklahoma, that was not just. More importantly, when is there likely to be a reason good enough to use eminent domain on a racial minority? I can't think of one. But I can tell you that if a city needs to widen a road to relieve gridlock, that is good enough.
If you'd bothered to read some of my other replies to other people you'd have seen I'm all in favor of JUST compensation, so the $500 is now $50,000. Read what else I've said nearby and you'll understand why you're a fucking moron for wasting your time.
I looked briefly at the link, decided you were joking if you thought I'd read all that, then checked at dictionary.com what the definition of "plunder" is. Sure enough, plundering is taking without giving just compensation. So please stop with that argument.
How about the law be changed so property taken couldn't be given or leased to private parties? When a loophole is found, close it. If another is found, close that one. We don't scrap the tax code just because there are loopholes, we close them. We don't go with a flat tax perhaps because it has downsides that are worse than closing the loopholes in what we have.
Example of life being complicated: 30+ years ago a now 74-year-old woman immigrated illegally to the USA from Central America after her husband died, all three of her children died while young, and her brother was murdered. She worked here as a nanny and jobs like those. She spend the last of her money a few years ago on a bus ticket to come to San Francisco to be a nanny. The man who was going to hire her never showed up at the bus terminal. A worker at the terminal took her to a shelter where she's been ever since. She wants to work, but the rules and regulations say she can't until her immigration status is dealt with. She's applied to become a citizen over many years, but to no avail. So today, she wants to work but can't while she gets benefits from the shelter. If she's deported she'll probably quickly suffer and die, as there are fewer shelters and resources south of the border. The cold and callous options don't sit well with me because she wants to be productive. So the rules should be modified either for all cases like hers, or to allow exceptions. The very loopholes you don't like, but I say are sometimes necessary.
To ignore loopholes altogether, how about the law simply say eminent domain is only allowed for building public roads that connect to ungated communities within city boundaries, and also for public buildings. Changes to the law can be made later.
The problem with your argument about corruptible politicians is you're trying to stop their effects instead of stopping the causes of the corruption. That's why we have checks and balances, to stop a cause of corruption, namely, power.
As for the cause, what corrupts politicians? Money? Where does the money come from? Corporations? Then get a constitutional amendment that declares corporations do not have the rights of a person. (Do you know it was a clerical error in the 1890's that started that bullshit in the first place?)
I looked briefly at the link, decided you were joking if you thought I'd read all that, then checked at dictionary.com what the definition of "plunder" is. Sure enough, plundering is taking without giving just compensation. So please stop with that argument.
How about the law be changed so property taken couldn't be given or leased to private parties? When a loophole is found, close it. If another is found, close that one. We don't scrap the tax code just because there are loopholes, we close them. We don't go with a flat tax perhaps because it has downsides that are worse than closing the loopholes in what we have.
Example of life being complicated: 30+ years ago a now 74-year-old woman immigrated illegally to the USA from Central America after her husband died, all three of her children died while young, and her brother was murdered. She worked here as a nanny and jobs like those. She spend the last of her money a few years ago on a bus ticket to come to San Francisco to be a nanny. The man who was going to hire her never showed up at the bus terminal. A worker at the terminal took her to a shelter where she's been ever since. She wants to work, but the rules and regulations say she can't until her immigration status is dealt with. She's applied to become a citizen over many years, but to no avail. So today, she wants to work but can't while she gets benefits from the shelter. If she's deported she'll probably quickly suffer and die, as there are fewer shelters and resources south of the border. The cold and callous options don't sit well with me because she wants to be productive. So the rules should be modified either for all cases like hers, or to allow exceptions. The very loopholes you don't like, but I say are sometimes necessary.
To ignore loopholes altogether, how about the law simply say eminent domain is only allowed for building public roads that connect to ungated communities within city boundaries, and also for public buildings. Changes to the law can be made later.
The problem with your argument about corruptible politicians is you're trying to stop their effects instead of stopping the causes of the corruption. That's why we have checks and balances, to stop a cause of corruption, namely, power.
As for the cause, what corrupts politicians? Money? Where does the money come from? Corporations? Then get a constitutional amendment that declares corporations do not have the rights of a person. (Do you know it was a clerical error in the 1890's that started that bullshit in the first place?)
"The ends justify the means" is much more concise.
Oh I agree, but it creates a different mental image in peoples' heads. Someone else replied and complained that governments often don't justly compensate for the property taken. I agree that just compensation should be required. The current implementaion of eminent domain is flawed, but fixing it doesn't mean getting rid of it entirely.
Politicians and philosophers have got us this far over three millennia. I have confidence that given time things will continue to improve. Or do you think civilzation peaked say, around 1850?
So restrict the power of eminent domain in the same manner that it was established. Is eminent domain in the Federal or State constitutions? Or is it a completely false construct?
The second amendment could have read:
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms for a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, , shall not be infringed."
And it would have carried as much weight as the actual version does. It would have allowed states to ban guns to non militia members.
In this way eminent domain can be codified. As for how to define it, I'm sure there must be some way to phrase it, as lawyers have made many good laws with difficult speech and concepts. As an example, when this amendment is written, we should all lobby our congresscritters and tell them we don't want governments to be able to take property from one private party and then give it to another one. Only government use should be allowed.
Your whole tangent misses two key points:
The person I replied to called eminent domain "truly evil." It clearly isn't always.
What's good for developers isn't necessarily related to what's good for humanity. So change the law to stop eminent domain being used for developers private projects. As John Adams said, we must have a government of laws and not men.
So what? There was rationing and government interference during WWII and probably WWI, though I'm not familiar with that history. Just because tyrants and dicators used sound logic methods used by better governments doesn't mean the methods are bad.
Besides, if it really does help humanity, and a few people have their property taken, with actually just compensation, then it's for the best.
Businesses and corporations tend to own and make the stuff the war effort needs. Corporations generally don't have feelings. See Halliburton as a nice example of greed.
To modify the grandparent:
Wow... an example of eminent domain/Just Compensation being used improperly = eminent domain/Just compensation is evil...
WTF is wrong with you?
That's where carefully crafted legislation comes in. There is a balance to be struck, and finding it isn't easy. Thus the law should err on the side of the property owners.
Yet I can say for certain that when the USA is fighting one or more official armies of nation(s), and a majority of the American public approves this war effort, that scarce goods or land may be taken from individuals, with compensation, when those items are critical for saving thousands of American lives or winning the war.
Except you're comparing a parking lot, to help a private business and increase tax revenue, to producing drugs more cheaply to save lives and save money for States to spend elsewhere.
I only know about the New Haven case from the two comments related to my post. I don't know enough about it, but on the surface, it does seem like an especially flimsy case the city put together.
I don't know if I support eminent domain taken that far, but the grandparent called it "truly evil," and I absolutely disagree with that. There are some cases that are clear where the good of humanity should allow it.
When it comes to drug prices, I think Canada has struck a reasonable balance. The prices for drugs there bring in enough revenue for the companies to earn a profit, and still have money to invest in R&D.
Eminent domain isn't truly evil to me because I believe the world doesn't revolve around you. Or myself. Or that we should be so selfish and give ourselves such high priority in life. We should be more concerned about what is good for humanity.
Except that in a large theater I like to sit about 7 to 10 rows from the front. That way the screen approximately fills my field of view. It's more immersive than sitting in the middle-to-back. Sitting that close I clearly see the grain and blur, though I do my best to ignore them so I can enjoy the flick. I saw The Phantom Menace on a big screen at 1280x1024 and even if I'd been sitting in the middle I would have seen the pixels. I agree with the others who think this is just HDTV on a small-to-medium-sized screen. Yawn.
Does anyone know if Blu-ray or HD-DVD movies will be compressed as 1920x1024 24fps PROGRESSIVE? Then decompressed by the player and interlaced as needed? I'll be rather disappointed if they're stored in 720p. Assuming they do ship as 1024p, I'll be buying my own projector and screen for a few thousand and only see a handful of movies in an actual theater.
Both the cable and brick are ten dollars overpriced. Way to gouge on the important extras, Apple.
Aside from the fact that the CEO of Sega America made some incredibly retarded decisions, by far the biggest mistake Sega made was releasing the 32X. Support for the Sega CD declined. Then a few games that used the Sega CD and 32X came out. Then only a year after the 32X came out, the Saturn was released. Gamers and publishers got burned all around. The Saturn was hard to program, but potentially more powerful than the Playstation. If gamers and publishers hadn't sworn off Sega, the console would have had higher sales and games available.
The Game Gear was released in 1990. The Sega CD was 1991, but the 32X wasn't until 1993. The Game Gear failed because of poor battery life and a higher price. Solving those would have increased sales and publisher support, which would have raised sales. Also, I don't think the Game Gear was a failure. Games were made for it for at least three years. The Jungle Book and The Lion King were some of the last games for it in 1994. It didn't unseat the GameBoy, but I'm sure it made money for Sega and the publishers who released quality games.
Except that Blizzard could if they wanted to set the account to inactive, and remove the key from the account. That user would have to purchase a new key to play again.
6 months? HA! Mac hardware improves pathetically slow compared to x86. What the hell is gonna change in 6 months necessitating 1GB? I bought my 1.2GHz Athlon with 512MB and Win2k. A box with 512 and WinXP is still serviceable. Personally I'd get a Gig. Now for a Mac mini, which is slow but the OS needs less memory, I'd still get 512.
To eventually use computer hardware and software that's too well known and vulnerable? It's the Praetorians from The Net. They want to get their Gatekeeper software onto all military hardware.
Your statements have no logic. You just complained that you want a 21" screen and proper keyboard. How will a Mac Mini docked onto a laptop help?
Thus the answer is at home and work, plug your laptop into a big 21" screen, and use a USB keyboard and mouse to control your laptop.