Look at the Arizona immigration bill which pretty much forces people who look Mexican to keep papers on them at all times asserting that they are here legally whether they are or not.
Excuse me, the Arizona law explicitly states that the officer must have another reason to stop the person in question.
The decision as to whether to keep papers on yourself before leaving the house in the morning can't be made with knowledge that no cop will find some reason to stop you that day. Just telling non-whites "don't worry, you have to do something first" is hardly reassuring. The law is worded innocently as if it applies equally to all citizens, but white non-citizens really don't have to worry as much about this law than non-white citizens. It makes it more important for non-whites (citizens or not) to run around with identification. An argument can be made that this is an unavoidable, unintended consequence of the law. But the consequences were widely known (or at least widely believed) at time of passage. These were seldom acknowledged except by the most cretinous, but they clearly provided the bill with additional impetus.
Additionally, the officer must have an explicit reason the believe that the person was in the country illegally.
That's actually its offensive aspect. If this law isn't going to favor whites, then everyone with a busted taillight has to automatically have their citizenship checked. Either check everybody or nobody. (I vote nobody.) There shouldn't need to be an "explicit reason" needed at all. "Explicit reasons" are automatically suspect. The required level of explicitness called for here is subjective and ill-defined, and is obviously going to be strongly affected by skin color to the benefit of white people. I mean, get real, we can all see that. Even with the purest of pure intentions, cops are still prone to selection bias, because they are human beings, and it is well known that most white people in Arizona tend to be citizens. Who really wants to waste time bugging white people about their citizenship credentials?
So for example, if someone was riding in a car that was pulled over for a traffic violation, if they sat quietly and the driver had their driver's license, there would be no reason for the officer to ask for their ID under the Arizona law
OK, I'm having a little problem understanding this scenario. The driver just showed him his driver's license. Why is the officer asking for ID now? Isn't a driver's license ID? What more do you need in your glove compartment, a birth certificate?
More like, if someone were riding in a car pulled over for a traffic violation- if they sat quietly and the driver did NOT have his driver's license, BUT was a white guy, there will be no explicit reason for the officer to ask for their ID under this law. [Maybe because it's because I'm out of state, this scenario still makes no sense to me because the first thing they ask for is your driver's license, which I think would be ID, and even citizens get arrested for driving without one.]
( I have my doubts that the failure of the driver to have their driver's license would be sufficient for the officer to request ID from passengers).
I have my doubts of your doubts.
You know you really shouldn't rely on the description of the law by its opponents.
Actually its literal description is generally not in dispute by either side. A lot of people are arguing whether Arizona laws preempt federal legislation (answer: no). But I think what is really at issue here are two competing judicial philosophies: whether or not a law constitutes a violation of the equal protection clause, when the spirit of the law reflects an obvious intent at time of passage to undermine equal protections based on transparently predictable de facto effects, even though the letter of the law is carefully designed to do no such thing.
Because using ducks or oranges in a bank heist would be too hard to understand.
Yeah, but wouldn't that be awesome?
ROBBER: OK, everybody on the floor- I have a duck here, and I'm not afraid to use it!
TELLER: Umm... [trembling] Uh... um OK... [looks around nervously] ROBBER:[Hurls orange netted plastic bag at teller] Now fill this! Now! And no dye packs! [Waves duck threateningly] DUCK:[struggling] Quack! Quack quack!
TELLER: Yes sir, whatever you say... [frantically starts packing the bag with oranges] DUCK: Quack!
Suddenly a loud alarm pierces the air. The robber jumps onto the counter and grabs the bag; loose oranges fly everywhere. He makes a mad dash for the exit. but finds that the doors are locked. ROBBER: Fuck!
Kicks door repeatedly, then swings the bag of oranges at the glass; which disintegrates in an explosion of glass shards. A dye pack hidden among the oranges goes off. ROBBER: You fuckers, I said no dye packs!
TELLER: Uh, honest, I didn't know... well look sir, it's orange dye anyway...
Robber throws duck at the teller, then struggles through the broken glass. DUCK:[enraged] Quack quack! Quack quack! Quack quack quack!
TELLER: [screaming] Aaagh- it's a duck on me! Help! Duck! Please!
New scene. Several minutes later- first police officer enters the bank. COP: Watch it- duck! [Pulls pistol, fires round at duck] DUCK: Quack!
Several seconds of silence... TELLER #2: Wow- thanks... what a relief! How did this guy get his hands on a duck anyway?
COP: We try to stop them when they go through the airports, but now they're starting to hide the ducks up their asses as they go through security.
TELLER #2 What do you do when you find someone trying to sneak a duck into the country?
COP: Well, the first thing you need to do is get some Dawn dishwashing detergent...
Ah but if the cat were shorter from head to tail than the Planck length, that line of reasoning would not be applicable and the verdict's hybrid quantum state will collapse in favor of goatse guy in all jurisdictions except the State of Texas.
As of August 31, 2008, we will no longer be able to support the retrieval of license keys for the songs you purchased from MSN Music or the authorization of additional computers. You will need to obtain a license key for each of your songs downloaded from MSN Music on any new computer, and you must do so before August 31, 2008. If you attempt to transfer your songs to additional computers after August 31, 2008, those songs will not successfully play.
IIRC they did allow a short time for people to quickly burn their purchases onto audio CD.
A music collection is usually supposed to survive sitting in a corner mostly undisturbed for years. You shouldn't have to periodically "maintain" it to keep stuff from not playing anymore. You shouldn't have to watch your email for announcements. You should be able to wake up from a coma and pull out any arbitrary album, despite how long it's been there, and assume that it will play.
I read the entire transcript and the sense that I got was that the justices were testing the soundness of the arguments by throwing out absurd scenarios that stretch credibility in order to see whether or not it is applicable.
OK, let's say you're the judge, and you don't think your scenario is absurd. But you have to render an opinion in a court on the surface of the moon with its attendant jurisdictional and respiratory issues in which the plaintiff may not have standing- she may be kneeling, and administering oral sex to justices under the bench. Meanwhile defendants are traveling by at almost the speed of light and experiencing time dilation that interferes with scheduled court appearances. Upon completion of a happy ending, shall defendants be cited for failing to appear with summary judgment granted to the plaintiff, or given the indeterminate simultaneity dependent upon which party's reference frame is considered, toss the case back to lower courts on Earth requiring clarification on whether the court's proper frame must be used? Would the same findings hold if the ending were say, not happy?
"These are the same folks"? Of the above quoted justices, only Scalia is a member of the Roberts-Alito-Scalia-Thomas bloc that always hands down 4 unanimous predictable votes for bareknuckled justice.
As for Kennedy, the fifth vote for the majority opinion in Citizens United- he's the "Butters" of the group.
FRY: Stem cells- aren't those controversial?
PROFESSOR: In your time, yes. Now we have adult stem cells, harvested from healthy adults, whom I killed for their stem cells!
Can you show me the email that was state business being sent from Sarah Palin's personal account?
You can either file your own FOI request or contact the nonprofit and look through the four boxes of emails they got in theirs. I don't feel like Googling one for you.
Also, Todd did not work for the State of Alaska, regardless of what is in his email
Uhhhhhh..... THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT. We have no idea who opened Todd's account, but regardless of who was reading it, state business was always BCC-ed to it. And someone who could log into the account was trying to get a state trooper fired for having a messy divorce with Sarah Palin's sister. RTFL.
Had he gotten an official Alaska.gov email address, then you'd have something. Otherwise, Michelle Obama's statement that the government can tell us what to eat could be considered an executive order.
More like Michelle Obama trying to get a general demoted for not liking her dress.
In response to similar but separate public records requests, McLeod and Henning this summer received four banker boxes of e-mail and telephone records for two Palin aides: Frank Bailey and Ivy Frye. Henning was operating on behalf of the Valley group Last Frontier Foundation, which lists property rights and public records as among its core issues on its Web site.
"I think that it's total hypocrisy from what she stood for at the beginning of her campaign," Henning said. "Because she campaigned on open government, and she knew that using a private e-mail account would take it and basically hide stuff that people couldn't see."
As far as McLeod can tell, all but one of the e-mails to the governor used her private e-mail address. The one time an aide e-mailed the governor's state account, he was reminded not to.
"Frank, This is not the Governor's personal e-mail account," an assistant to Palin wrote to Bailey in February.
"Whoops~!" Bailey responded in an e-mail.
The state public records law says these are public documents like any other official government business conducted via snail mail. They are subject to public review via FOI requests, but they're not being kept in any kind of public archive. Asking Palin to surrender and not delete all her relevant Yahoo correspondence on the honor system is pointless.
Todd Palin had an account used for some interesting state business as well.
wait till you're bidding against (subsidized) PG&E to heat your home at
3X the current prices.
I live in Santa Clara, which has its own non-PG&E electric service. (From "local politicians going into the electricity business", as that bitch sneered in the the slick commercials for Prop 16- which would have required 2/3 of all voters to approve of their locality moving away from PG&E. That commercial was on every fucking commercial break last month and the POS almost passed.) Santa Clara charges 8 cents per kWh.
Lawrence Expressway is one block away, separating Santa Clara from Sunnyvale, which is served by PG&E. By my reckoning, electric bills in Sunnyvale are 50% higher, since the PG&E baseline rate is 12 cents per kWh. I don't know what this "3X rate hike" is all about, but I've heard it from other people in surrounding PG&E territory.
Why should one group of people be allowed to pool their resources and influence, but not others?
Profit and non-profits are two distinct legally-protected entities, which were originally defined as enjoying different levels of free-speech protections.
When the corporate charter was first developed, creating the idea of a "virtual individual", it was done so ostensibly in the public interest, in a legislative capacity. The legislature back then could easily have defined which constitutional rights would apply to a new type of "individual" that they were defining from scratch. People seemed to be more legally careless back then, relying more on "common sense" than today. and it seems that the idea of corporations having First Amendment rights was considered bizarre in the 19th century. Corporations were advertising freely, and it seemed that was that. Political speech has always been the most protected level of speech, and commercial speech the least protected ("Drink responsibly").
Non-profit charters, OTOH were formed with the express purpose of allowing people to pool their resources for effective political speech. The corporate charter of an an NPO dictates that any profits made from registration or donations or whatnot are used to pay employees and cover expenses, and then as the primary goal, to further their political speech. A for-profit corporation's charter defines profits as the primary goal, and calls for their eventual redistribution to their employees and shareholders. Political speech is, at most, an ancillary goal for a corporation. Both are in a position to threaten employees with loss of income. But only for-profit corporations are in a position to threaten shareholders with less return on their investment. A non-profit has no shareholders to serve; it can only disappoint donors with ineffective or misdirected political speech.
And of course this is always different for individuals, because of prisons. Neither profit nor nonprofit corporations can be incarcerated or thrown in jail. They can merely be fined considered by large corporations to be "the cost of doing business", or dissolved. (Procedurally, it is much easier to dissolve an NPO; only some jurisdictions have procedures for dissolution of for-profit corporations.)
Yes that's the typical canard they use to rationalize everyone paying property taxes in seventies dollars except you, when you move in and become almost the entire tax base for all the "old ladies" on the entire street.
Well I hate to be the one to say this but California is prevented from collecting sufficient tax receipts to administer any state government on a day by day basis because of the structural budgetary problems imposed by Proposition 13. If forcing people to watch cartoons while tailgating doesn't work then maybe California should start shutting off traffic lights during off-peak hours to save electricity.
Slashdot Mirror
Look at the Arizona immigration bill which pretty much forces people who look Mexican to keep papers on them at all times asserting that they are here legally whether they are or not.
Excuse me, the Arizona law explicitly states that the officer must have another reason to stop the person in question.
The decision as to whether to keep papers on yourself before leaving the house in the morning can't be made with knowledge that no cop will find some reason to stop you that day. Just telling non-whites "don't worry, you have to do something first" is hardly reassuring. The law is worded innocently as if it applies equally to all citizens, but white non-citizens really don't have to worry as much about this law than non-white citizens. It makes it more important for non-whites (citizens or not) to run around with identification. An argument can be made that this is an unavoidable, unintended consequence of the law. But the consequences were widely known (or at least widely believed) at time of passage. These were seldom acknowledged except by the most cretinous, but they clearly provided the bill with additional impetus.
Additionally, the officer must have an explicit reason the believe that the person was in the country illegally.
That's actually its offensive aspect. If this law isn't going to favor whites, then everyone with a busted taillight has to automatically have their citizenship checked. Either check everybody or nobody. (I vote nobody.) There shouldn't need to be an "explicit reason" needed at all. "Explicit reasons" are automatically suspect. The required level of explicitness called for here is subjective and ill-defined, and is obviously going to be strongly affected by skin color to the benefit of white people. I mean, get real, we can all see that. Even with the purest of pure intentions, cops are still prone to selection bias, because they are human beings, and it is well known that most white people in Arizona tend to be citizens. Who really wants to waste time bugging white people about their citizenship credentials?
So for example, if someone was riding in a car that was pulled over for a traffic violation, if they sat quietly and the driver had their driver's license, there would be no reason for the officer to ask for their ID under the Arizona law
OK, I'm having a little problem understanding this scenario. The driver just showed him his driver's license. Why is the officer asking for ID now? Isn't a driver's license ID? What more do you need in your glove compartment, a birth certificate?
More like, if someone were riding in a car pulled over for a traffic violation- if they sat quietly and the driver did NOT have his driver's license, BUT was a white guy, there will be no explicit reason for the officer to ask for their ID under this law. [Maybe because it's because I'm out of state, this scenario still makes no sense to me because the first thing they ask for is your driver's license, which I think would be ID, and even citizens get arrested for driving without one.]
( I have my doubts that the failure of the driver to have their driver's license would be sufficient for the officer to request ID from passengers).
I have my doubts of your doubts.
You know you really shouldn't rely on the description of the law by its opponents.
Actually its literal description is generally not in dispute by either side. A lot of people are arguing whether Arizona laws preempt federal legislation (answer: no). But I think what is really at issue here are two competing judicial philosophies: whether or not a law constitutes a violation of the equal protection clause, when the spirit of the law reflects an obvious intent at time of passage to undermine equal protections based on transparently predictable de facto effects, even though the letter of the law is carefully designed to do no such thing.
This machine makes an appearance when Tron and Flynn are kept as prisoners by Sark and forced to keep offering coffee until they get erased.
Because using ducks or oranges in a bank heist would be too hard to understand.
Yeah, but wouldn't that be awesome?
ROBBER: OK, everybody on the floor- I have a duck here, and I'm not afraid to use it!
TELLER: Umm... [trembling] Uh... um OK... [looks around nervously]
ROBBER: [Hurls orange netted plastic bag at teller] Now fill this! Now! And no dye packs! [Waves duck threateningly]
DUCK: [struggling] Quack! Quack quack!
TELLER: Yes sir, whatever you say... [frantically starts packing the bag with oranges]
DUCK: Quack!
Suddenly a loud alarm pierces the air. The robber jumps onto the counter and grabs the bag; loose oranges fly everywhere. He makes a mad dash for the exit. but finds that the doors are locked.
ROBBER: Fuck!
Kicks door repeatedly, then swings the bag of oranges at the glass; which disintegrates in an explosion of glass shards. A dye pack hidden among the oranges goes off.
ROBBER: You fuckers, I said no dye packs!
TELLER: Uh, honest, I didn't know... well look sir, it's orange dye anyway...
Robber throws duck at the teller, then struggles through the broken glass.
DUCK: [enraged] Quack quack! Quack quack! Quack quack quack!
TELLER: [screaming] Aaagh- it's a duck on me! Help! Duck! Please!
New scene. Several minutes later- first police officer enters the bank.
COP: Watch it- duck! [Pulls pistol, fires round at duck]
DUCK: Quack!
Several seconds of silence...
TELLER #2: Wow- thanks... what a relief! How did this guy get his hands on a duck anyway?
COP: We try to stop them when they go through the airports, but now they're starting to hide the ducks up their asses as they go through security.
TELLER #2 What do you do when you find someone trying to sneak a duck into the country?
COP: Well, the first thing you need to do is get some Dawn dishwashing detergent...
Ah but if the cat were shorter from head to tail than the Planck length, that line of reasoning would not be applicable and the verdict's hybrid quantum state will collapse in favor of goatse guy in all jurisdictions except the State of Texas.
Can't say a movie about video games isn't / wasn't art.
Personally I think the first one from 1982 looks more artistic than what appears in the trailer for Tron Legacy.
As of August 31, 2008, we will no longer be able to support the retrieval of license keys for the songs you purchased from MSN Music or the authorization of additional computers. You will need to obtain a license key for each of your songs downloaded from MSN Music on any new computer, and you must do so before August 31, 2008. If you attempt to transfer your songs to additional computers after August 31, 2008, those songs will not successfully play.
IIRC they did allow a short time for people to quickly burn their purchases onto audio CD.
A music collection is usually supposed to survive sitting in a corner mostly undisturbed for years. You shouldn't have to periodically "maintain" it to keep stuff from not playing anymore. You shouldn't have to watch your email for announcements. You should be able to wake up from a coma and pull out any arbitrary album, despite how long it's been there, and assume that it will play.
I read the entire transcript and the sense that I got was that the justices were testing the soundness of the arguments by throwing out absurd scenarios that stretch credibility in order to see whether or not it is applicable.
OK, let's say you're the judge, and you don't think your scenario is absurd. But you have to render an opinion in a court on the surface of the moon with its attendant jurisdictional and respiratory issues in which the plaintiff may not have standing- she may be kneeling, and administering oral sex to justices under the bench. Meanwhile defendants are traveling by at almost the speed of light and experiencing time dilation that interferes with scheduled court appearances. Upon completion of a happy ending, shall defendants be cited for failing to appear with summary judgment granted to the plaintiff, or given the indeterminate simultaneity dependent upon which party's reference frame is considered, toss the case back to lower courts on Earth requiring clarification on whether the court's proper frame must be used? Would the same findings hold if the ending were say, not happy?
"These are the same folks"? Of the above quoted justices, only Scalia is a member of the Roberts-Alito-Scalia-Thomas bloc that always hands down 4 unanimous predictable votes for bareknuckled justice.
As for Kennedy, the fifth vote for the majority opinion in Citizens United- he's the "Butters" of the group.
Maybe; it was just on a minute ago.
FRY: Stem cells- aren't those controversial?
PROFESSOR: In your time, yes. Now we have adult stem cells, harvested from healthy adults, whom I killed for their stem cells!
What on earth makes you think they're going to give up on encryption
Nothing, because I don't. But I'm also not assuming it will still be HDCP.
Use them to tie stuff down in your truck.
What's going to deny me the right to watch my own stuff whenever I'm not allowed?
Can you show me the email that was state business being sent from Sarah Palin's personal account?
You can either file your own FOI request or contact the nonprofit and look through the four boxes of emails they got in theirs. I don't feel like Googling one for you.
Also, Todd did not work for the State of Alaska, regardless of what is in his email
Uhhhhhh..... THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT. We have no idea who opened Todd's account, but regardless of who was reading it, state business was always BCC-ed to it. And someone who could log into the account was trying to get a state trooper fired for having a messy divorce with Sarah Palin's sister. RTFL.
Had he gotten an official Alaska.gov email address, then you'd have something. Otherwise, Michelle Obama's statement that the government can tell us what to eat could be considered an executive order.
More like Michelle Obama trying to get a general demoted for not liking her dress.
Wasn't Palin's email full of personal stuff and not full of emails from lobbyists and the like offering bribes?
It's illegal in all 50 states to conduct state business on a Yahoo account:
In response to similar but separate public records requests, McLeod and Henning this summer received four banker boxes of e-mail and telephone records for two Palin aides: Frank Bailey and Ivy Frye. Henning was operating on behalf of the Valley group Last Frontier Foundation, which lists property rights and public records as among its core issues on its Web site.
"I think that it's total hypocrisy from what she stood for at the beginning of her campaign," Henning said. "Because she campaigned on open government, and she knew that using a private e-mail account would take it and basically hide stuff that people couldn't see."
As far as McLeod can tell, all but one of the e-mails to the governor used her private e-mail address. The one time an aide e-mailed the governor's state account, he was reminded not to.
"Frank, This is not the Governor's personal e-mail account," an assistant to Palin wrote to Bailey in February.
"Whoops~!" Bailey responded in an e-mail.
The state public records law says these are public documents like any other official government business conducted via snail mail. They are subject to public review via FOI requests, but they're not being kept in any kind of public archive. Asking Palin to surrender and not delete all her relevant Yahoo correspondence on the honor system is pointless.
Todd Palin had an account used for some interesting state business as well.
I like my health insurance. They don't let doctors interfere in my patient-insurer relationship.
wait till you're bidding against (subsidized) PG&E to heat your home at 3X the current prices.
I live in Santa Clara, which has its own non-PG&E electric service. (From "local politicians going into the electricity business", as that bitch sneered in the the slick commercials for Prop 16- which would have required 2/3 of all voters to approve of their locality moving away from PG&E. That commercial was on every fucking commercial break last month and the POS almost passed.) Santa Clara charges 8 cents per kWh.
Lawrence Expressway is one block away, separating Santa Clara from Sunnyvale, which is served by PG&E. By my reckoning, electric bills in Sunnyvale are 50% higher, since the PG&E baseline rate is 12 cents per kWh. I don't know what this "3X rate hike" is all about, but I've heard it from other people in surrounding PG&E territory.
"The previous section of this Act expires in 5 years from date of enactment."
How hard is that? They know that five years from now they'll never let something like this expire without an updated version to replace it.
How about signing your worst enemies names to the petition instead, so people will retaliate against them?
- Barack Obama
Why should one group of people be allowed to pool their resources and influence, but not others?
Profit and non-profits are two distinct legally-protected entities, which were originally defined as enjoying different levels of free-speech protections.
When the corporate charter was first developed, creating the idea of a "virtual individual", it was done so ostensibly in the public interest, in a legislative capacity. The legislature back then could easily have defined which constitutional rights would apply to a new type of "individual" that they were defining from scratch. People seemed to be more legally careless back then, relying more on "common sense" than today. and it seems that the idea of corporations having First Amendment rights was considered bizarre in the 19th century. Corporations were advertising freely, and it seemed that was that. Political speech has always been the most protected level of speech, and commercial speech the least protected ("Drink responsibly").
Non-profit charters, OTOH were formed with the express purpose of allowing people to pool their resources for effective political speech. The corporate charter of an an NPO dictates that any profits made from registration or donations or whatnot are used to pay employees and cover expenses, and then as the primary goal, to further their political speech. A for-profit corporation's charter defines profits as the primary goal, and calls for their eventual redistribution to their employees and shareholders. Political speech is, at most, an ancillary goal for a corporation. Both are in a position to threaten employees with loss of income. But only for-profit corporations are in a position to threaten shareholders with less return on their investment. A non-profit has no shareholders to serve; it can only disappoint donors with ineffective or misdirected political speech.
And of course this is always different for individuals, because of prisons. Neither profit nor nonprofit corporations can be incarcerated or thrown in jail. They can merely be fined considered by large corporations to be "the cost of doing business", or dissolved. (Procedurally, it is much easier to dissolve an NPO; only some jurisdictions have procedures for dissolution of for-profit corporations.)
Yes that's the typical canard they use to rationalize everyone paying property taxes in seventies dollars except you, when you move in and become almost the entire tax base for all the "old ladies" on the entire street.
Yeah, and in Utah, they choose firing squad, being in the only state that offers firing squads as an option. What's your point?
Well I hate to be the one to say this but California is prevented from collecting sufficient tax receipts to administer any state government on a day by day basis because of the structural budgetary problems imposed by Proposition 13. If forcing people to watch cartoons while tailgating doesn't work then maybe California should start shutting off traffic lights during off-peak hours to save electricity.
Does anyone know Ronnie Lee Gardner's Twitter ID? I can only imagine...
@ronnieleegardner Ow ow ow... ow!
It's interesting that so many people sentenced to death in Utah opted for the firing squad. Why choose it?
Atonement for one's sins was originally believed there to be accomplished by spilling the sinner's blood.