Because they did cause harm to CONSUMERS who purchased and used the product: the Tobacco companies were able to be sued successfully for various damages under the Consumer Protection and Antitrust laws.
The key was: not only did they cause harm, BUT there were laws providing protection to consumers against manufacturers selling them products that would cause damage to their health ESPECIALLY if they knew their product would be harmful and employed false advertising, or deliberately deceived consumers or took steps to conceal information about the harm.
That was the case with Tobacco companies, BUT there aren't consumer protection statute that deal with claimed harm to the environment.
That's 240 pounds of water; which is orders of magnitude higher than the weight capacity of consumer drones, AND that's still an insignificant amount of water for firefighting --- come back when you can carry 20,000 gallons of water or 15000 gallons of fire ratardants.
Private drones should be able to fly unmolested, even if there is a fire, this is a newsworthy/noteworthy, and there SHOULD be an allowed way to observe this aerially without creating a hazard; someone's theoretical issues with it an obstinance against change should not result in attempts to make laws criminalizing operation of drones --- possible collision with a drone is just a theoretical threat which should not draw any reaction other than maybe requiring some pilots to change their behavior to adapt, so long as any drone encountered is controlled and not TRULY threatening or in direct path of firefighting craft.
Hall explained that once an unauthorized drone is observed during a wildfire, firefighters ground their planes.
This is a procedural defect on Firefighters' part --- If they believe there is a danger, they should develop for their pilots appropriate tactics and defenses for handling `unwanted` drones. Including equipping planes with weighted nets that can be shot/deployed to forcefully remove a drone from the aircraft's path that comes within X feet of their aircraft or becomes an imminent threat.
Yes, but this is deceptive behavior because they still advertise the original Plan Price --- which hinders comparing services, since you never know exactly what the fees will be after you start service.
JMO. Recurring line items for "Surcharge", "Tax", or "Fee" should be Illegal, and they should be required to include any fee they want to charge in the plan price --- and if they wish to increase the cost, then they must announce a change in the rates.
no they don't - it isn't illegal to wave a hammer around but if I accidentally hit you with it and break your arm - you can sue.
Wrong. It certainly is Illegal (unlawful) behavior to hit someone with a hammer, and furthermore, directly causing bodily injury to somebody or through negligence or reckless actions failing in your duty to prevent property under your care causing bodily injury to somebody is a violation of that person's recognized rights protected under the law.
In case you cause someone bodily injury, what can be claimed and all the procedures for bringing the claim are clearly defined by various state laws ---- There is a law in your state which allows somebody to sue you whom you directly injured by carelessly waving a hammer around, Or at least they can claim you were carelessly waving a hammer around: there is a possibility the court will find, the person who ran into the hammer was 100% responsible, because there was a warning sign and yellow tape out which they went around before sneaking behind the person using the hammer.
Illegal activity is criminal courts not civil courts, civil courts can address any complaint that shows a provable harm.
No.... Illegal activity can be EITHER a criminal issue, OR a civil issue, OR both.
Civil courts address Unlawful harm.
There are lawful ways a person can be harmed which will not be addressed by the courts; since they don't violate a recognized legal right Or relate to an infringement for which there is a civil procedure.
For example: People who disagree with content in a Company X spokesperson's speech can organize a public shaming on social media or a boycott of their company, and the company can fire their employee. Company Y can start offering a competing product thus decimating Company X and resulting in their business failing. A landlord can increase a tenant's rate of rent after the initial lease expires, or even give them notice they must leave within 30 days of lease expiration. These are all lawful actions, in spite of great harm they cause, but they are all lawful actions, so there is no civil claim.
Somehow, it just doesn't seem that secure to hint at your contents prior to authentications. You sure that's how it works?
The PIN is used only to gain authorization required to perform management operations on the card's secure applications or to perform cryptographic operations using the secure keypair from write-only key storage in order to prove the user's identity to the network.
The SIM card's Status can be queried and the files and contents of the SIM filesystem, The names and Phone numbers of any contacts stored on the card, etc. Are not encrypted or locked by the PIN and could technically be read in without even authenticating ---- that's just ancillary information available on the card which is separate from the Network Identity and cryptographic material that the SIM card is designed to secure.
The difference between Tobacco and Oil is that Tobacco doesn't have many or any real advantages other then for entertainment. So its harmful side effects which were hidden lied about and distorted (like what big oil had done) were not offset by its advantages.
Tobacco had product liability, because it actually causes damage to the health of the person who purchased and used it, which they deceptively concealed to keep people from buying it. Petrol use doesn't have any harmful side effects for the user when used according to instructions, so there's no chance of product liability for that ---- that is people who Buy or Don't buy the product aren't in any better shape. There is a price to be paid, BUT it is US as an entire society who have decided to use this product as our major fuel, and it is our state and federal governments that continue to approve these companies exploring and fracking and otherwise finding new wells and extracting petroleum products including for the purpose of fuel.
So if I want to sue someone who has harmed me, I should try to win an election and get legislation passed....
Yes. You don't get to sue just because someone "harmed you"; the other party also has to have harmed you in specifically an illegal manner such as a direct infringment on your legally recognized rights or by failing in a recognized duty to you (such as failing to uphold their part of a bargain) requiring redress by the courts to correct an injustice --- for example, if you lost money because my fancy marketing convinced someone to buy a good or service for me instead of you, then that's perfectly legal, and there's no grounds for suit.
So it is with Oil companies.... they might in theory have provided other companies petroleum products which resulted in CO2 releases that some groups claim related to global warming that you theorize has harmed you, But there was no law against their actions, there's no proof of a causal relationship, and even if you own property, there's no legal right to prevent someone from affecting the weather/climate over your property...
And at least Jabber offers the possibility of TLS and a decent password hashing system that allows strong passwords without them getting truncated for validation and encoded using a weak crackable hash. So what's the draw of the AIM client today?
If the SIM was plugged into another phone and then modified and saved with a new PIN, then the result of the SIM Status and READ commands which the phone can check prior to PIN authentication to retrieve the base files on the SIM filesystem will no longer be matching files, if the cached data includes their checksum and/or SIM status information, and the CCID and Update timestamps; they will reflect that some update has been written to the card, and the phone could be designed to expunge the cache in this case.
caches a succesful PIN entry and then verifies subsequent PIN entries autonomously without submitting them to the card
They might do this to improve login performance due to the SIM card having a slow response time --- cache the user's correct PIN and verify it locally before submitting to the card, but if a SIM card change is detected then expunge the cache.
only two kinds of arthropods actually infest humans: lice and a mite that causes scabies.
What about worms and leech-like creatures?
I know someone who had a large calcified structure discovered in their body near a major organ at first thought to be a tumor or aneurysm, that could have been life-threatening; now believed to be the remnants of a past dog tapeworm infection.
The security guard probably just assumed that was the case and buzzed him through. After all, if you don't want them to use discretion
That's the thing... if he "just assumed," then the guard is not using discretion --- since security is provided a list of dismissed employees who Are to be denied access, then he should've known that employee was on the list.
Once it is disabled, an email is sent to security about recently dismissed employees. Scanning the key card is a red flag.
his entry pass to the Los Angeles skyscraper where his office was based failed to work, forcing him to rely on the security guard to allow him entry.
He found a major weakness in their security: The security guard created a security issue by allowing him entry into the office anyways, despite the fact the system was supposed to have notified security he was terminated ---- If he was on the list of dismissed employees, then he should've been denied entry.
This is all due to the "shorts" though, not the Tesla management.
Makes sense.... I remember reading a week ago or so about Elon alleging sabotage against the company and possible conspiracies being investigated. Who knew the shorts were willing to go to such extreme measures to try and recoup their bet.
They have not ruled that states can require online retailers to collect sales tax in general. They have overturned the argument that there is no nexus because of No Physical Presence, and Nexus can be established in other ways for large National retailers such as Quill or Amazon, for example. The court ruled there --- This quantity of business could not have occurred unless the seller availed itself of the substantial privilege of carrying on business in South Dakota. And respondents are large, national companies that undoubtedly maintain an extensive virtual presence. Thus, the substantial nexus requirement of Complete Auto is satisfied in this case
The question remains whether some other principle in the Court’s Commerce Clause doctrine might invalidate the Act. Because the Quill physical presence rule was an obvious barrier to the Act’s validity, these issues have not yet been litigated or briefed, and so the Court need not resolve them here. That said, South Dakota’s tax system includes several features that appear designed to prevent discrimination against or undue burdens upon interstate commerce. First, the Act applies a safe harbor to those who transact only limited business in South Dakota.
Kids have the natural rights: the same natural rights as any adult has; However, when it comes to discretionary rights that you have to decide to use Or can waive (As in a right to sign a contract promising to do X) -- a minor is deemed legally to not be of sound mind to make a decision or judgement, therefore, a minor cannot waive a right, and a minor cannot decide to exercise a right until their competent guardian or custodian approves, For example: A minor cannot sign a contract, or make a purchase, or dispose of their property on their own. A minor has free speech, but requires a guardian to approve them going out in public and exercising it. A child citizen has the right to move freely about the country, but their exact travel plan must be approved by their custodian and supervision is required of their travel.
The Constitution doesn't give rights to citizens, but to people in the US, so skip that argument please.
The Constitution doesn't give anybody rights. The constitution recognizes fundamental rights to the people of the country, AND if you're not from this country and not a legal migrant, then you're not among the People of this Country -- the citizens, and the constitution prohibits the government from interfering with the rights: only thing the constitution doles out are enumerated powers granted to branches of government and officials.
If the government is taking away a kids parents, then the government assumes an obligation to properly care for those kids
What do you mean by "care for"? This is not an obligation of the government. The government has a RIGHT to enforce the laws of the land, and that includes removing criminals to protect the public. If the criminal happens to be keeping a kid --- the government is NOT obligated to make up for what the parent did not do or can no longer do -- that is, to replace the parent, regardless of whether the parent is now in prison or unfortunately died violently resisting law enforcement. Helping to get care for the kid is a service that might be available and might be aided by the government if the necessary program or option has been passed into law and sufficient designated funds have been set aside that are allowed to be used for this purpose.
It NEEDS to be more expensive; Uber's a horrendous deal for the transportation workers.... with fares such as $0.99 a mile being offered in many places, after subtracting Uber's 25% cut = Only $0.74 for the driver. Next subtract the fuel, tires, and vehicle maintenance cost, according to IRS guidelines the average deductible cost is $0.54/Mile and could be more (IRS tends to give a low estimate), so $0.74 - $0.54 = $0.20.
Next, because Uber never collects or pays any of the local taxes they effectively amplify their cut --- the driver is responsible for paying 100% of the local sales tax and any other taxes for the entire fare -- including the Tax on Uber's cut (PLUS the driver has to pay the sales tax on the $1.80 booking fee and other charges riders pay which are NOT shared with drivers) FROM the driver's 75% cut of the fare; local tax rate here is 10%, so that's $0.09 per Mile plus $0.18 per Trip. That means for a 5-Mile trip the total tax is $0.13 per Mile.
$0.20 - $0.13 = Leaves $0.07/Mile for the driver after they pay their gas and local taxes.
So you rather the kids just be abandoned there on the spot when the parents are arrested? The kids can't go to jail with the courts
That's an interesting thought experiment. Suppose border agents adopt this new policy: After detaining any group attempting to improperly cross the border into custody --- search all members of the group, confiscate any goods, weapons, backpacks, etc, Take adults away for detention, and Turn any kids loose on the spot, Or release them back on the Mexico side of the border without holding them and tell them to go home, since they cannot be jailed with family.
Why throw the parents in one cage and the children in a different cage? Why not keep them together?
Because it would make headlines the first time a kid gets killed at the canteen by some other random adult with an improvised weapon.
All the people in a cage form this thing that is called a "jail/prison community", and, there would be plenty of OTHER adults in the vicinity who are depraved and present a danger to kids.
Various kinds of inmate-on-inmate fighting, abuse, rape, and violence are extremely common in prison settings, And it's even worse if you mix such other adults with kids who don't even have a chance of physically defending themselves.
There's no law that sets misdemeanor bail to zero for parents, nor for people who can't post.
Correct.... if a parent is jailed in the US, they absolutely CANNOT bring the child into jail with them (Inmate violent offences such as assault or rape are common between inmates in a Jail/Prison community -- Being held with adults would be a very unsafe environment for a child; the care of the child is going to be transferred to someone else at least so long as the parent is in jail. Assuming the child has not also committed a crime: either another parent or close family member, or they will be placed with a foster care facility.
In the case of Illegal entry into the US, BOTH the Adults accompany kid AND the kid themself have ALL committed a crime by improperly entering the US that carries a potential prison sentence of up to 6 months on a first offense or 2 years or more upon later offense, AND the additional Civil violation of being unlawfully present in the US, those are two separate violations both of which carry potential prison time and Deportation as consequences, and the Kid committed a crime too, so they can and should also be held in a suitable detention facility.
Frankly.... they should probably drop the kids off at the Mexican consulate to be returned home at the expense of the Mexican government.
Nobody in the US loses their kids over a misdemeanor.
In this case, the kids also committed the same misdemeanor (Improper Entry), as well as the Civil Violation of being Unlawfully present in the US.
Even a misdemeanor carries a potential prison sentence --- If you go into jail awaiting your hearing or trial and cannot post bond, there's NO WAY that a kid or other family member will be allowed to accompany you while you are being held, And being in detention makes you incompetent to retain physical custody of any child. You can meet up with your kid after you are both released.
Publishing a LinkedIn search may or may not be moral, but it's not "doxxing."
No... Publishing a list of real names on the internet is Absolutely Doxing. It doesn't matter if the Real Name is public on LinkedIn, and the Employer can be looked up from the name --- the LIST is derived information; the LIST itself is the Dox, and it doesn't matter whether Public records could be used to assemble the list or a combination of Public and Non-Public records were required: The likely purpose for the list is Harrassment, and it's definitely Dox'ing AND a major privacy invasion to publish such a list.
what State doesn't have a single ticket agent? Does that state have a kiosk to buy tickets from?
Exactly that.... put up vending kiosks, Or entice private agencies to offer their tickets (In exchange for getting to charge a price premium.... EG: 25% Surcharge on top of the normal ticket price for the convenience of purchasing a ticket from a human at a desk).
Either way: It is inappropriate for the federal government to be meddling into the details of how they choose to sell their product with protectionist policies seeking to force Amtrak to waste money by hiring a specific number of positions. Amtrak naturally should have the economic interest to serve their customers for their business to profit: they need to sell the tickets that people want to purchase. If Amtrak fails, then taking a bus is always an option.
Slashdot Mirror
Because they did cause harm to CONSUMERS who purchased and used the product: the Tobacco companies
were able to be sued successfully for various damages under the Consumer Protection and Antitrust laws.
The key was: not only did they cause harm, BUT there were laws providing protection to consumers against
manufacturers selling them products that would cause damage to their health ESPECIALLY if they knew their
product would be harmful and employed false advertising, or deliberately deceived consumers or took steps to
conceal information about the harm.
That was the case with Tobacco companies, BUT there aren't consumer protection statute that deal with
claimed harm to the environment.
That's 240 pounds of water; which is orders of magnitude higher than the weight capacity of consumer drones, AND that's still an insignificant amount of water for firefighting --- come back when you can carry 20,000 gallons of water or 15000 gallons of fire ratardants.
Private drones should be able to fly unmolested, even if there is a fire, this is a newsworthy/noteworthy, and there SHOULD be an allowed way to observe this aerially without creating a hazard; someone's theoretical issues with it an obstinance against change should not result in attempts to make laws criminalizing operation of drones --- possible collision with a drone is just a theoretical threat which should not draw any reaction other than maybe requiring some pilots to change their behavior to adapt, so long as any drone encountered is controlled and not TRULY threatening or in direct path of firefighting craft.
Hall explained that once an unauthorized drone is observed during a wildfire, firefighters ground their planes.
This is a procedural defect on Firefighters' part --- If they believe there is a danger, they should develop for their pilots appropriate tactics and defenses for handling `unwanted` drones. Including equipping planes with weighted nets that can be shot/deployed to forcefully remove a drone from the aircraft's path that comes within X feet of their aircraft or becomes an imminent threat.
Yeah, but small price to pay to be able to start smoking again!!!
Apparently you never heard of other conditions which cause severe and irrecoverable damage to the lungs that have nothing to do with smoking.
At least smokers' lungs can potentially heal (providing they haven't developed COPD).
Yes, but this is deceptive behavior because they still advertise the original Plan Price --- which hinders comparing services, since you never know exactly what the fees will be after you start service.
JMO. Recurring line items for "Surcharge", "Tax", or "Fee" should be Illegal, and they should be required to include any fee they want to charge in the plan price --- and if they wish to increase the cost, then they must announce a change in the rates.
no they don't - it isn't illegal to wave a hammer around but if I accidentally hit you with it and break your arm - you can sue.
Wrong. It certainly is Illegal (unlawful) behavior to hit someone with a hammer, and furthermore, directly causing bodily injury to somebody or through negligence or reckless actions failing in your duty to prevent property under your care causing bodily injury to somebody is a violation of that person's recognized rights protected under the law.
In case you cause someone bodily injury, what can be claimed and all the procedures for bringing the claim
are clearly defined by various state laws ---- There is a law in your state which allows somebody to sue you whom you directly injured by carelessly waving a hammer around, Or at least they can claim you were carelessly waving a hammer around: there is a possibility the court will find, the person who ran into the hammer was 100% responsible, because there was a warning sign and yellow tape out which they went around before sneaking behind the person using the hammer.
Illegal activity is criminal courts not civil courts, civil courts can address any complaint that shows a provable harm.
No.... Illegal activity can be EITHER a criminal issue, OR a civil issue, OR both.
Civil courts address Unlawful harm.
There are lawful ways a person can be harmed which will not be addressed by the courts; since they don't violate a recognized legal right Or relate to an infringement for which there is a civil procedure.
For example: People who disagree with content in a Company X spokesperson's speech can organize a
public shaming on social media or a boycott of their company, and the company can fire their employee.
Company Y can start offering a competing product thus decimating Company X and resulting in their business failing.
A landlord can increase a tenant's rate of rent after the initial lease expires, or even give them notice they must leave within 30 days of lease expiration. These are all lawful actions, in spite of great harm they cause, but they are all lawful actions, so there is no civil claim.
Somehow, it just doesn't seem that secure to hint at your contents prior to authentications. You sure that's how it works?
The PIN is used only to gain authorization required to perform management operations on the card's secure applications or to perform cryptographic operations using the secure keypair from write-only key storage in order to prove the user's identity to the network.
The SIM card's Status can be queried and the files and contents of the SIM filesystem, The names and Phone numbers of any contacts stored on the card, etc. Are not encrypted or locked by the PIN and could technically be read in without even authenticating ---- that's just ancillary information available on the card which is separate from the Network Identity and cryptographic material that the SIM card is designed to secure.
The difference between Tobacco and Oil is that Tobacco doesn't have many or any real advantages other then for entertainment. So its harmful side effects which were hidden lied about and distorted (like what big oil had done) were not offset by its advantages.
Tobacco had product liability, because it actually causes damage to the health of the person who purchased and used it, which they deceptively concealed to keep people from buying it. Petrol use doesn't have any harmful side effects for the user when used according to instructions, so there's no chance of product liability for that ---- that is people who Buy or Don't buy the product aren't in any better shape. There is a price to be paid, BUT it is US as an entire society who have decided to use this product as our major fuel, and it is our state and federal governments that continue to approve these companies exploring and fracking and otherwise finding new wells and extracting petroleum products including for the purpose of fuel.
So if I want to sue someone who has harmed me, I should try to win an election and get legislation passed....
Yes. You don't get to sue just because someone "harmed you"; the other party also has to have harmed you in specifically an illegal manner such as a direct infringment on your legally recognized rights or by failing in a recognized duty to you (such as failing to uphold their part of a bargain) requiring redress by the courts to correct an injustice --- for example, if you lost money because my fancy marketing convinced someone to buy a good or service for me instead of you, then that's perfectly legal, and there's no grounds for suit.
So it is with Oil companies.... they might in theory have provided other companies petroleum products which resulted in CO2 releases that some groups claim related to global warming that you theorize has harmed you, But there was no law against their actions, there's no proof of a causal relationship, and even if you own property, there's no legal right to prevent someone from affecting the weather/climate over your property...
And at least Jabber offers the possibility of TLS and a decent password hashing system that allows strong passwords without them getting truncated for validation and encoded using a weak crackable hash. So what's the draw of the AIM client today?
If the SIM was plugged into another phone and then modified and saved with a new PIN, then the result of the
SIM Status and READ commands which the phone can check prior to PIN authentication to retrieve the base files
on the SIM filesystem will no longer be matching files, if the cached data includes their checksum and/or
SIM status information, and the CCID and Update timestamps; they will reflect that some update has
been written to the card, and the phone could be designed to expunge the cache in this case.
caches a succesful PIN entry and then verifies subsequent PIN entries autonomously without submitting them to the card
They might do this to improve login performance due to the SIM card having a slow response time ---
cache the user's correct PIN and verify it locally before submitting to the card, but if a SIM card change is
detected then expunge the cache.
only two kinds of arthropods actually infest humans: lice and a mite that causes scabies.
What about worms and leech-like creatures?
I know someone who had a large calcified structure discovered in their body near a major organ at first thought to be a tumor or aneurysm, that could have been life-threatening; now believed to be the remnants of a past dog tapeworm infection.
The security guard probably just assumed that was the case and buzzed him through. After all, if you don't want them to use discretion
That's the thing... if he "just assumed," then the guard is not using discretion --- since security is provided a list of dismissed employees who Are to be denied access, then he should've known that employee was on the list.
There's one issue they have though:
Once it is disabled, an email is sent to security about recently dismissed employees. Scanning the key card is a red flag.
his entry pass to the Los Angeles skyscraper where his office was based failed to work, forcing him to rely on the security guard to allow him entry.
He found a major weakness in their security: The security guard created a security issue by allowing him entry into the office anyways, despite the fact the system was supposed to have notified security he was terminated ---- If he was on the list of dismissed employees, then he should've been denied entry.
This is all due to the "shorts" though, not the Tesla management.
Makes sense.... I remember reading a week ago or so about Elon alleging sabotage against the company and possible conspiracies being investigated.
Who knew the shorts were willing to go to such extreme measures to try and recoup their bet.
They have not ruled that states can require online retailers to collect sales tax in general. They have overturned the argument that there is no nexus because of No Physical Presence, and Nexus can be established in other ways for large National retailers such as Quill or Amazon, for example. The court ruled there --- This quantity of business could not have occurred unless the seller availed itself of the substantial privilege of carrying on business in South Dakota.
And respondents are large, national companies that undoubtedly maintain an extensive virtual presence. Thus, the substantial nexus requirement of Complete Auto is satisfied in this case
Do kids have rights?
Kids have the natural rights: the same natural rights as any adult has; However,
when it comes to discretionary rights that you have to decide to use Or can waive
(As in a right to sign a contract promising to do X) -- a minor is deemed legally to
not be of sound mind to make a decision or judgement, therefore, a minor cannot
waive a right, and a minor cannot decide to exercise a right until their competent
guardian or custodian approves, For example: A minor cannot sign a contract, or
make a purchase, or dispose of their property on their own. A minor has free speech,
but requires a guardian to approve them going out in public and exercising it.
A child citizen has the right to move freely about the country, but their exact travel plan must be
approved by their custodian and supervision is required of their travel.
The Constitution doesn't give rights to citizens, but to people in the US, so skip that argument please.
The Constitution doesn't give anybody rights. The constitution recognizes fundamental rights to the people of the country, AND if you're not from this country and not a legal migrant, then you're not among the People of this Country -- the citizens, and the constitution prohibits the government from interfering with the rights: only thing the constitution doles out are enumerated powers granted to branches of government and officials.
If the government is taking away a kids parents, then the government assumes an obligation to properly care for those kids
What do you mean by "care for"? This is not an obligation of the government. The government has a RIGHT to enforce the laws of the land, and that includes removing criminals to protect the public. If the criminal happens to be keeping a kid --- the government is NOT obligated to make up for what the parent did not do or can no longer do -- that is, to replace the parent, regardless of whether the parent is now in prison or unfortunately died violently resisting law enforcement. Helping to get care for the kid is a service that might be available and might be aided by the government if the necessary program or option has been passed into law and sufficient designated funds have been set aside that are allowed to be used for this purpose.
It NEEDS to be more expensive; Uber's a horrendous deal for the transportation workers.... with fares such as $0.99 a mile being offered in many places, after subtracting Uber's 25% cut = Only $0.74 for the driver. Next subtract the fuel, tires, and vehicle maintenance cost, according to IRS guidelines the average deductible cost is $0.54/Mile and could be more (IRS tends to give a low estimate), so $0.74 - $0.54 = $0.20.
Next, because Uber never collects or pays any of the local taxes they effectively amplify their cut --- the driver is responsible for paying 100% of the local sales tax and any other taxes for the entire fare -- including the Tax on Uber's cut (PLUS the driver has to pay the sales tax on the $1.80 booking fee and other charges riders pay which are NOT shared with drivers) FROM the driver's 75% cut of the fare; local tax rate here is 10%, so that's $0.09 per Mile plus $0.18 per Trip. That means for a 5-Mile trip the total tax is $0.13 per Mile.
$0.20 - $0.13 = Leaves $0.07/Mile for the driver after they pay their gas and local taxes.
So you rather the kids just be abandoned there on the spot when the parents are arrested? The kids can't go to jail with the courts
That's an interesting thought experiment. Suppose border agents adopt this new policy: After detaining any group attempting to improperly cross the border into custody --- search all members of the group, confiscate any goods, weapons, backpacks, etc, Take adults away for detention, and Turn any kids loose on the spot, Or release them back on the Mexico side of the border without holding them and tell them to go home, since they cannot be jailed with family.
Why throw the parents in one cage and the children in a different cage? Why not keep them together?
Because it would make headlines the first time a kid gets killed at the canteen by some other random adult with an improvised weapon.
All the people in a cage form this thing that is called a "jail/prison community", and, there would be plenty of OTHER adults in the vicinity who are depraved and present a danger to kids.
Various kinds of inmate-on-inmate fighting, abuse, rape, and violence are extremely common in prison settings, And it's even worse if you mix such other adults with kids who don't even have a chance of physically defending themselves.
There's no law that sets misdemeanor bail to zero for parents, nor for people who can't post.
Correct.... if a parent is jailed in the US, they absolutely CANNOT bring the child into jail with them (Inmate violent offences such as assault or rape are common between inmates in a Jail/Prison community -- Being held with adults would be a very unsafe environment for a child; the care of the child is going to be transferred to someone else at least so long as the parent is in jail. Assuming the child has not also committed a crime: either another parent or close family member, or they will be placed with a foster care facility.
In the case of Illegal entry into the US, BOTH the Adults accompany kid AND the kid themself have ALL committed a crime by improperly entering the US that carries a potential prison sentence of up to 6 months on a first offense or 2 years or more upon later offense, AND the additional Civil violation of being unlawfully present in the US, those are two separate violations both of which carry potential prison time and Deportation as consequences, and the Kid committed a crime too, so they can and should also be held in a suitable detention facility.
Frankly.... they should probably drop the kids off at the Mexican consulate to be returned home at the expense of the Mexican government.
Nobody in the US loses their kids over a misdemeanor.
In this case, the kids also committed the same misdemeanor (Improper Entry), as well as the Civil Violation of being Unlawfully present in the US.
Even a misdemeanor carries a potential prison sentence --- If you go into jail awaiting your hearing or trial and cannot post bond, there's NO WAY that a kid or other family member will be allowed to accompany you while you are being held, And being in detention makes you incompetent to retain physical custody of any child. You can meet up with your kid after you are both released.
Publishing a LinkedIn search may or may not be moral, but it's not "doxxing."
No... Publishing a list of real names on the internet is Absolutely Doxing.
It doesn't matter if the Real Name is public on LinkedIn, and the Employer can be looked up from the name --- the LIST is derived information; the LIST itself is the Dox, and it doesn't matter whether Public records could be used to assemble the list or a combination of Public and Non-Public records were required: The likely purpose for the list is Harrassment, and it's definitely Dox'ing AND a major privacy invasion to publish such a list.
what State doesn't have a single ticket agent? Does that state have a kiosk to buy tickets from?
Exactly that.... put up vending kiosks, Or entice private agencies to offer their tickets (In exchange for getting to charge a price premium.... EG: 25% Surcharge on top of the normal ticket price for the convenience of purchasing a ticket from a human at a desk).
Either way: It is inappropriate for the federal government to be meddling into the details of how they choose to sell their product with protectionist policies seeking to force Amtrak to waste money by hiring a specific number of positions. Amtrak naturally should have the economic interest to serve their customers for their business to profit: they need to sell the tickets that people want to purchase. If Amtrak fails, then taking a bus is always an option.