Uh, maybe go talk to the little shit's parents, otherwise known as your neighbors. Are we really so afraid of each other that we can no longer talk to our neighbors?
Hey, you just parroted the "gun nut" line but applied it to RC aircraft. We've been asking this question for years: "Exactly how is a law that requires me to ask government permission via an FFL holder permission to give a birthday gift to my wife going to stop a drug dealer from buying a gun in a back alley?" Or this way: "Do you really think that drug dealers are going to walk down to the local FFL holder and ask for a background check before selling or giving a stolen gun to another drug dealer?"
uh, not quite. It is " ignorant fucking statements like yours that are a major contributing factor as to why we have such a shitty Congress and national state of affairs" (to quote you). The 9th Amendment very clearly points out that the Constitution is in no way a comprehensive list of the rights we, the people (individually and collectively in groups of our choosing) enjoy and the 10th very clearly points out that the Federal government has absolutely no authority to do anything unless the Constitution explicitly says so. Anyone who cannot comprehend the 9th and 10th amendments has no business speaking about the Constitution in public.
" the FAA itself is constitutional because it is not expressly forbidden by the constitution" Wrong. A reading of the 10th Amendment tells us that the Federal government only has that power which is explicitly given it by the Constitution which is exactly the opposite of what you wrote. Also, pay attention to the 9th Amendment which points out that just because the Constitution and its amendments may list specific rights does not mean that any rights not listed don't exist. The 9th and 10th amendments together point out that we have all rights imaginable unless the Constitution specifically removes that right and the Federal government has no power not specifically written into the Constitution. How far we have strayed.
You are correct that Congress authorized the FAA but Congress can only authorize the Executive Branch to act within the realm granted by the Constitution.
And yes, the Courts are currently operating under the misguided notion that every aspect of your life has some affect on interstate Commerce and, therefore, every aspect of your life is subject to Federal oversight but any honest and rational person looking to preserve any notion of individual rights can easily see how flawed and twisted the thinking behind that is. "What? You choose to not buy this product? That negatively effects Interstate Commerce so we will fine you." "You could take your body across state lines and purchase something. Therefore we can regulate you." If you fail to see how absurd the misinterpretation has become, we are doomed.
The intent of that clause was to prevent states from enacting tariffs and taxes on products from other states whereby preference was given to some states over others. That is all that clause was meant to do.
Yup, the only recourse is to force them to give you a loan and then pay it back slowly over time. Good thinking there. Oh wait. Force them to give the government regulatory agencies money and then pay it for them. Either way, the residents (who are also most likely customers) end up paying.
Megol, you don't seem to understand that people have all manner of tools available to go after a shop that erroneously accuses them of bad behavior and all manner of tools available to go after a shop that refuses them service without that shop first following a bunch of legalities that start with said person having committed a bad act against that particular shop (or another shop owned by the same owner). At least in the States. If you don't have the same legal protections available in Europe then, well at least you won't get shot by a shop owner defending himself and you will have free healthcare if you do.
Here in the States an artist can be sued for not contributing art to celebrate a wedding that they don't think should be happening. How easy do you think it is for a shop to be sued for not serving a customer simply because Joe across town or across the state or 5 states over says that someone resembling you acted like a jackass once?
Do you honestly think this system isn't full of audit trails about which shop posted what and that shops are going to give every employee rights to enter "problem people" into the system? Have you ever been employed by an actual business? The real world works completely different than what you seem to be imagining here.
And if you are conscientious member of society, you will help them out from time to time by being truthful and honest and cooperative if you have witnessed a crime. You know, Golden Rule and being a good neighbor and all.
Well sort of. i actually agree with you on the principle but not on the actual current legal situation in the US. Because of the Civil Rights Act and subsequent modifications, a shop does have to jump through some hoops before refusing service without a risk of a lawsuit that they will probably lose. But once those hopps have been successfully negotiated because of actual wrongdoing then, yes, shops have options.
It will be misused to an extent much less than shops are currently abused by shoplifters and people not paying for services and food. And we know that is rampant.
What recourse does a shop owner have against a shoplifter? First they have to prove the shoplifting happened (video evidence, admission or a perp dumb enough to hang around with unpaid merchandise in his pockets until an officer drops by in the next hour or so). then they have to get the prosecutors to care about prosecuting a single digit dollar crime.
What recourse does an innocent person have against a shop that falsely accused them? A lawyer working on contingency asking the shop for the incontrovertible proof of the innocent persons guilt and then a large payout?
Did you notice who is spending the money, who is providing the proof and who is doing the paying? The truly innocent aren't paying in this system. The shops aren't abusing anything in this system. Please seek psychiatric help so you can rejoin reality.
Where are the laws against making false accusations? Where are the laws against not allowing members of the public into your public accomodation without actual proof that they have harmed you and are likely to harm you and that you have previously given them legal notice that they are not welcome on your premises because of those prior actions? just look for them. They exist in every US jurisdiction. just because you are too lazy to find them does not mean they don't exist. Just because you claim they don't exist does not mean they don't exist.
Well, after you approach the accusing shop for proof and they can't give it to you because they have no video evidence and the only employee who "saw" it happen is your ex, the shop will probably have a chat with your ex about the rules and if it happens a second time they will either pay you and your lawyer a large sum of money or fire your ex or both. Both times they will promptly remove you from the list and inform anyone sharing the list of the mistake or pay you and your lawyer a lot of money. It really is not difficult to find a lawyer willing to take this on contingency as long as you don't have a record of convictions for this.
This notion that all shop owners and corporations exist simply to screw you over is really an irrational thought pattern and anybody having this issue should probably seek professional psychiatric treatment.
Uh no, the two shop owners would "get away with it" because it is not illegal (at least in the US). Here in the US we call this behavior, giving your neighbor and possibly competitor a heads up that he may be about to be robbed, being a good neighbor. Now, the shop owner being called can't simply kick Lou out unless he has actually caught Lou shoplifting a time or two and properly notified Lou that Lou is no longer welcome on the premises but he is certainly free to more vigorously watch Lou in an attempt to catch him. My wife just went through this with a particular "customer" (not sure someone who steals more than he buys is properly referred to as a customer). They caught him shoplifting a few times by assigning her to do nothing but watch him when he was in the store. The second time was after he was apprehended and arrested but before the corporate office (large regional chain with hundreds or thousands of stores) got around to sending a registered letter giving him notification of his unfavorable status. After the second apprehension, they just followed him around at arms length as if they were his best friend and would remind him as he bought his $1 coffee that he also had $5 dollars worth of candy in his pocket. The first time he denied it until they suggested that an officer could drop by to help him check the pocket. He then suddenly remembered. Retail theft is a huge problem in the US and probably elsewhere as well. I see nothing wrong with shops freely sharing information on who is causing the loss and who isn't. The stakes are so high for a shop to make a false accusation that the police are generally not involved without clear video evidence so these fears that shop owners are going to use this system to unfairly target innocent people are just irrational.
Actually, here in Wisconsin the police are not allowed to write a ticket if you are driving within the measured 85th percentile speed (outside of school zones). The speed limits are measured automatically every so often on various stretches of roads by radar machines that report your speed to you along with a sign reminding you of the posted speed limit. This is to encourage people to slow down to the posted speed limit to keep the 85th percentile close to the prior posted limit.
It works really good and I believe other states follow this as well.
The most interesting thing that has happened as most states are raising their freeway / limited access speed limits to 70 or 75 MPH is that the 85th percentile really hasn't changed much. If a speed limit went from 65 to 70 the 85th percentile changes from 72 to 73 because people long ago determined where they are comfortable driving.
Wrong, multiple studies by civil engineers have shown that designing and building a road and not posting a speed limit and then measuring how fast people drive (after a settle in time) and setting the speed limit at where the 85th percentile drives almost always establishes the same speed limit as what the engineers originally had in mind when designing the road. The only change to this is when conditions changes such as a volume increase because of additional residential areas or businesses being built.
Wait, I thought that everything ever published that tells us exactly how evolution happened is totally accurate? Is someone suggesting that there might be some minor mistakes in those textbooks? What's next? Are we going to hear some nonsense about the global warming models not quite predicting today with 100% accuracy?
They don't. They just think that transparency is helpful in the situation you are citing.
For instance, if every newspaper (or social media site) leaned far right and then people cited the the lack of any left-leaning voices in those forums as evidence of a lack of left-leaning people at all, wouldn't left-leaning people really like at least one group to call foul and point out that maybe some censoring is happening and that there really are left-leaning folks around? How about the reverse situation?
What the EFF is saying is, you can censor and we'll let people know that you are censoring. Are you really claiming that people have no right to know if these large organizations are engaged in censorship?
It is true that those companies are private entities and are not prevented by the First Amendment (US Constitution) from censoring. However, they can engage in censorship and it can be very harmful to society.
Let's examine what would happen if the leadership of Facebook and Google were conservatives and those companies actively prevented anti-gun, pro-abortion and anti-gay marriage posts from being widely seen (or seen at all). Could that shape the debate within the US?
So, if it would be wrong for them to do that, why is it okay for them to lean the other way and censor pro-gun, anti-abortion, etc. content?
Hint: If you think it is wrong when done to you, you should also think it is wrong when done to somebody else.
No, it all depends on how hard you pull the lever or push the button, what kind of body english you put on it and what incantations you mutter. All skill.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, maybe go talk to the little shit's parents, otherwise known as your neighbors. Are we really so afraid of each other that we can no longer talk to our neighbors?
Hey, you just parroted the "gun nut" line but applied it to RC aircraft. We've been asking this question for years: "Exactly how is a law that requires me to ask government permission via an FFL holder permission to give a birthday gift to my wife going to stop a drug dealer from buying a gun in a back alley?" Or this way: "Do you really think that drug dealers are going to walk down to the local FFL holder and ask for a background check before selling or giving a stolen gun to another drug dealer?"
Let me guess... It means that as long as I do exactly what the government tells me to do, they will let me do exactly what they tell me to do?
uh, not quite. It is " ignorant fucking statements like yours that are a major contributing factor as to why we have such a shitty Congress and national state of affairs" (to quote you). The 9th Amendment very clearly points out that the Constitution is in no way a comprehensive list of the rights we, the people (individually and collectively in groups of our choosing) enjoy and the 10th very clearly points out that the Federal government has absolutely no authority to do anything unless the Constitution explicitly says so. Anyone who cannot comprehend the 9th and 10th amendments has no business speaking about the Constitution in public.
Remember the 9th amendment. It is a very powerful reminder of what the Constitution actually does and where our rights actually come from.
" the FAA itself is constitutional because it is not expressly forbidden by the constitution" Wrong. A reading of the 10th Amendment tells us that the Federal government only has that power which is explicitly given it by the Constitution which is exactly the opposite of what you wrote. Also, pay attention to the 9th Amendment which points out that just because the Constitution and its amendments may list specific rights does not mean that any rights not listed don't exist. The 9th and 10th amendments together point out that we have all rights imaginable unless the Constitution specifically removes that right and the Federal government has no power not specifically written into the Constitution. How far we have strayed.
You are correct that Congress authorized the FAA but Congress can only authorize the Executive Branch to act within the realm granted by the Constitution.
And yes, the Courts are currently operating under the misguided notion that every aspect of your life has some affect on interstate Commerce and, therefore, every aspect of your life is subject to Federal oversight but any honest and rational person looking to preserve any notion of individual rights can easily see how flawed and twisted the thinking behind that is. "What? You choose to not buy this product? That negatively effects Interstate Commerce so we will fine you." "You could take your body across state lines and purchase something. Therefore we can regulate you." If you fail to see how absurd the misinterpretation has become, we are doomed.
The intent of that clause was to prevent states from enacting tariffs and taxes on products from other states whereby preference was given to some states over others. That is all that clause was meant to do.
Yeah, maybe the EPA could come in and clean it up like they did in Colorado and Utah.
Yup, the only recourse is to force them to give you a loan and then pay it back slowly over time. Good thinking there. Oh wait. Force them to give the government regulatory agencies money and then pay it for them. Either way, the residents (who are also most likely customers) end up paying.
Why is offering you a discount objectionable? Are you simply unable to refuse a purchase if it is discounted?
Megol, you don't seem to understand that people have all manner of tools available to go after a shop that erroneously accuses them of bad behavior and all manner of tools available to go after a shop that refuses them service without that shop first following a bunch of legalities that start with said person having committed a bad act against that particular shop (or another shop owned by the same owner). At least in the States. If you don't have the same legal protections available in Europe then, well at least you won't get shot by a shop owner defending himself and you will have free healthcare if you do.
Here in the States an artist can be sued for not contributing art to celebrate a wedding that they don't think should be happening. How easy do you think it is for a shop to be sued for not serving a customer simply because Joe across town or across the state or 5 states over says that someone resembling you acted like a jackass once?
Do you honestly think this system isn't full of audit trails about which shop posted what and that shops are going to give every employee rights to enter "problem people" into the system? Have you ever been employed by an actual business? The real world works completely different than what you seem to be imagining here.
And if you are conscientious member of society, you will help them out from time to time by being truthful and honest and cooperative if you have witnessed a crime. You know, Golden Rule and being a good neighbor and all.
Well sort of. i actually agree with you on the principle but not on the actual current legal situation in the US. Because of the Civil Rights Act and subsequent modifications, a shop does have to jump through some hoops before refusing service without a risk of a lawsuit that they will probably lose. But once those hopps have been successfully negotiated because of actual wrongdoing then, yes, shops have options.
How can you possibly steal someone else's goods when we all own everything equally?
It will be misused to an extent much less than shops are currently abused by shoplifters and people not paying for services and food. And we know that is rampant.
What recourse does a shop owner have against a shoplifter? First they have to prove the shoplifting happened (video evidence, admission or a perp dumb enough to hang around with unpaid merchandise in his pockets until an officer drops by in the next hour or so). then they have to get the prosecutors to care about prosecuting a single digit dollar crime.
What recourse does an innocent person have against a shop that falsely accused them? A lawyer working on contingency asking the shop for the incontrovertible proof of the innocent persons guilt and then a large payout?
Did you notice who is spending the money, who is providing the proof and who is doing the paying? The truly innocent aren't paying in this system. The shops aren't abusing anything in this system. Please seek psychiatric help so you can rejoin reality.
Where are the laws against making false accusations? Where are the laws against not allowing members of the public into your public accomodation without actual proof that they have harmed you and are likely to harm you and that you have previously given them legal notice that they are not welcome on your premises because of those prior actions? just look for them. They exist in every US jurisdiction. just because you are too lazy to find them does not mean they don't exist. Just because you claim they don't exist does not mean they don't exist.
Well, after you approach the accusing shop for proof and they can't give it to you because they have no video evidence and the only employee who "saw" it happen is your ex, the shop will probably have a chat with your ex about the rules and if it happens a second time they will either pay you and your lawyer a large sum of money or fire your ex or both. Both times they will promptly remove you from the list and inform anyone sharing the list of the mistake or pay you and your lawyer a lot of money. It really is not difficult to find a lawyer willing to take this on contingency as long as you don't have a record of convictions for this.
This notion that all shop owners and corporations exist simply to screw you over is really an irrational thought pattern and anybody having this issue should probably seek professional psychiatric treatment.
Uh no, the two shop owners would "get away with it" because it is not illegal (at least in the US). Here in the US we call this behavior, giving your neighbor and possibly competitor a heads up that he may be about to be robbed, being a good neighbor. Now, the shop owner being called can't simply kick Lou out unless he has actually caught Lou shoplifting a time or two and properly notified Lou that Lou is no longer welcome on the premises but he is certainly free to more vigorously watch Lou in an attempt to catch him. My wife just went through this with a particular "customer" (not sure someone who steals more than he buys is properly referred to as a customer). They caught him shoplifting a few times by assigning her to do nothing but watch him when he was in the store. The second time was after he was apprehended and arrested but before the corporate office (large regional chain with hundreds or thousands of stores) got around to sending a registered letter giving him notification of his unfavorable status. After the second apprehension, they just followed him around at arms length as if they were his best friend and would remind him as he bought his $1 coffee that he also had $5 dollars worth of candy in his pocket. The first time he denied it until they suggested that an officer could drop by to help him check the pocket. He then suddenly remembered. Retail theft is a huge problem in the US and probably elsewhere as well. I see nothing wrong with shops freely sharing information on who is causing the loss and who isn't. The stakes are so high for a shop to make a false accusation that the police are generally not involved without clear video evidence so these fears that shop owners are going to use this system to unfairly target innocent people are just irrational.
Actually, here in Wisconsin the police are not allowed to write a ticket if you are driving within the measured 85th percentile speed (outside of school zones). The speed limits are measured automatically every so often on various stretches of roads by radar machines that report your speed to you along with a sign reminding you of the posted speed limit. This is to encourage people to slow down to the posted speed limit to keep the 85th percentile close to the prior posted limit.
It works really good and I believe other states follow this as well.
The most interesting thing that has happened as most states are raising their freeway / limited access speed limits to 70 or 75 MPH is that the 85th percentile really hasn't changed much. If a speed limit went from 65 to 70 the 85th percentile changes from 72 to 73 because people long ago determined where they are comfortable driving.
Wrong, multiple studies by civil engineers have shown that designing and building a road and not posting a speed limit and then measuring how fast people drive (after a settle in time) and setting the speed limit at where the 85th percentile drives almost always establishes the same speed limit as what the engineers originally had in mind when designing the road. The only change to this is when conditions changes such as a volume increase because of additional residential areas or businesses being built.
Wait, I thought that everything ever published that tells us exactly how evolution happened is totally accurate? Is someone suggesting that there might be some minor mistakes in those textbooks? What's next? Are we going to hear some nonsense about the global warming models not quite predicting today with 100% accuracy?
Wait, Free is supposed to mean getting users to pay? I guess I'm old fashioned because to me "free" equals "not paid for".
They don't. They just think that transparency is helpful in the situation you are citing.
For instance, if every newspaper (or social media site) leaned far right and then people cited the the lack of any left-leaning voices in those forums as evidence of a lack of left-leaning people at all, wouldn't left-leaning people really like at least one group to call foul and point out that maybe some censoring is happening and that there really are left-leaning folks around? How about the reverse situation?
What the EFF is saying is, you can censor and we'll let people know that you are censoring. Are you really claiming that people have no right to know if these large organizations are engaged in censorship?
It is true that those companies are private entities and are not prevented by the First Amendment (US Constitution) from censoring. However, they can engage in censorship and it can be very harmful to society.
Let's examine what would happen if the leadership of Facebook and Google were conservatives and those companies actively prevented anti-gun, pro-abortion and anti-gay marriage posts from being widely seen (or seen at all). Could that shape the debate within the US?
So, if it would be wrong for them to do that, why is it okay for them to lean the other way and censor pro-gun, anti-abortion, etc. content?
Hint: If you think it is wrong when done to you, you should also think it is wrong when done to somebody else.
No, it all depends on how hard you pull the lever or push the button, what kind of body english you put on it and what incantations you mutter. All skill.