You are only required to provide an accurate name, date of birth and address to police if you are arrested. If you are not under arrest, you don't have to identify yourself. It is illegal to give a false identity though, so just refuse to identify yourself.
It is crazy that many countries in the world have already solved the things the US seem to struggle with.
We only struggle because the stated reason for voter ID laws is not the actual reason for voter ID laws.
Also, we don't run one election. We run 50 elections, each managed by one state. With every state having different rules.
Also, we have a sizable number of idiots who are absolutely terrified that a national ID card would be step 1 in the UN taking over the country. (Please ignore that we already have two national ID cards)
You answered you own question. The opposition to voter ID is because it is not:
As long as the ID system is universal and taxpayer funded
My state has a "free" voter ID. To get it, I need a certified copy of my birth certificate. That costs $50. It is possible to get one for free if I go to the county where I was born and pick one up in-person. But since that's on the other side of the country, it would cost a teeny bit more than $50.
I also need to confirm my address with information like a lease or utility bill. Which is a bit of a problem if I'm living with someone else, because they're the ones on the lease and the utilities are in their name.
When I attempted to get a driver's license when I moved to NY shortly after they started doing RealIDs, it took 9 attempts at the DMV before the clerk would accept the documentation. The reasons for objecting to a document changed each time, and documents that were acceptable on one visit were not acceptable on the next. These trips required me to go to the DMV during working hours. If I was not in a job where I could say "I'm running down to the DMV again", this would be a big problem.
Also, that local DMV office? Not located near public transportation either. Since I happened to have my own car, I could do those 9 trips easily. But bumming a ride 9 times would probably be difficult.
All these turn "voter ID', even if the ID itself is free, into a poll tax. Which is not Constitutional. And it's not Constitutional for the same reason poll taxes were originally struck down: The actual effect of voter ID laws is to disenfranchise poor people.
Btw, NY has a bit on the DMV form where you can register to vote while getting your driver's license. On the first 8 attempts, I checked that box. On attempt #9, I didn't, because I had registered elsewhere by that point. Could be coincidence, could be that I wasn't registering for the dominant political party in the area.
Also, Voter ID "solves" a problem that does not exist. In-person voter fraud happens only a tiny handful of times (2016 election had about 9 cases).
How do you know mega corporations arent stacking the deck to continue to screw us, the people, over if there is no cross reference?
Because mega corporations can not reliably choose the ~1M+ people who are not going to show up at the polls with perfect accuracy. Which means someone is going to show up to vote when someone else already voted in their name and raise a fuss. Also, they'd have to hire hundreds of thousands of fake voters, and at least one of them would talk. Over here in NC, our recent election fraud was uncovered when one of three employees talked. You think one of hundreds of thousands in the same conspiracy isn't going to blab about making a quick buck on election day?
If the mega corporations were going to fix the election, they'd do it by having the mega corporation that builds the voting machines/tabulators commit election fraud.
So, here in NC, a guy hired by the Republican candidate literally changed the vote on absentee ballots. He, and his employees, filled in ballots where the voter had left a particular race blank.
He, and his employees, also threw out absentee ballots where the voter did not vote for the Republican.
This is the second election where he appears to have done this. He wasn't caught.
Over in TX, a get-out-the-vote group used public records to detect people who might not be properly registered, and mailed them a registration form. Btw, they were not the only group to do this. No votes changed, no ballots thrown out.
Pssst....Mailings you consider misleading is just a teensy tiny bit different than literally changing the vote on absentee ballots. For example, only the latter is a crime.
Democrats have no grounds to complain when Republicans filibuster a supreme court pick in the final year of a Democrat president (Obama's nomination of Garland) because Democrats started that tradition.
Really? Which nominee did they filibuster for over a year? (If you want to save some time, they didn't.)
Also, you're wrong about "filibustering" Garland. McConnell wouldn't even let there be a hearing in the Judiciary Committee, so there was no filibuster.
Democrats have no grounds to complain when Republicans refuse to impeach a sitting president, because during Obama's campaign he convinced his party not to impeach George Bush for cause
Wow do you not have a very good grasp of time.
The person who blocked impeachment was Pelosi. Obama's campaign had not started yet in January 2007, when Pelosi declared "Impeachment is off the table". Also, Obama at that point had very little institutional power, since he'd only been a Senator for a short time by that point.
(This despite Democrats holding firm majorities in both houses at the time.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Senate was 49+2 yielding a truly massive one seat majority. House was 233 to 202, yielding a 31 seat majority.
For those who are not quite familiar with the Constitution, conviction in the Senate requires 67 votes.
Which 16 Republicans do you think would actually place party over country and convict? Keep in mind that almost all of those Senators are still in the Senate, and exactly zero of them are willing to put country over party under the Trump administration.
Except the baker was happy to make a normal cake like he'd make for any wedding.
Nope. In all the cases that actually went to a courtroom, the baker refused to make a wedding cake at all. This was not about the cake topper having two men or two women. That's easy enough to get around with "I don't stock those, since there isn't much demand, so here's where you can go to buy one".
Also, the baker still had that "private club" option. But they wanted to be a regular business, which means they have to comply with the rules of a regular business.
Lastly, the idea that you "participate" in the event when you provide supplies for it is idiotic, and was only invented for two reasons. 1) So bigoted assholes could show just how bigoted they are, or 2) fraud. You really think gay couples were lining up to have their reception at a crappy pizza parlor in the middle of nowhere? Nope. But the owners of that place made about $2m by "taking a stand".
The layoffs in TFS were mostly in the marketing/PR/customer support parts of the companies. Very few were developers. So they're not in a good position to create a new gaming company.
If I'm a business serving the public, I have to. Because I have to serve all of the public.
If I'm a bigoted asshole, I can operate a "private club" that happens to bake cakes, and charge a $5 membership fee on the first cake you buy every year.
If I'm a bigoted asshole and want to show off just how much of an asshole I am, I can demand that I be excused from the law.
Jokes on them though, I never buy anything on Steam unless it's = $20. Wait a year and get the fully patched, bug-free, game-of-the-year edition. I let everyone else pay full price to be the beta testers:D
You realize you can only reliably do this because of Steam, right?
Back in the old days, the "clearance" section at the game store was not all that well stocked with good titles.
If the FCC is the government's form of regulating communications services in the United States how can they offer CAF funding to promote faster internet speeds but at same time the FCC claims it can't regulate it?
Well, one gives the ISPs money, so it is good. One prevents the ISPs from gouging others for money, so it is bad.
Intellectual consistency is not a requirement to run a business.
As someone who has stayed in my current job for over a decade
You're an idiot.
By staying at the same employer for 10 years, you've lost out on about 2-3 large raises you would have received by changing jobs. Depending on where you are in your career, you've missed out on 2-3 promotions too.
"Stay at the same employer for decades" died out when management decided layoffs were great for their bonuses, instead of something you do as a last ditch effort to avoid bankruptcy. Yes, it means institutional knowledge is constantly flooding out the door, but that's what management decided they wanted.
My credit score doesn't affect my ability to ride public transit, travel
Yet
get healthcare
You're kidding, right?
If you need some expensive medical treatment, but are not about to die in the next day or so without it, you will need approval from the hospital's billing department before your treatment. That approval is contingent on you either 1) paying for everything in cash, 2) paying all deductibles and co-pays in cash if your insurance approves, or 3) approval for financing. The last one is dependent on your FICO score. And arguably, #1 and #2 are also dependent on your FICO score because you're probably going to need to use some sort of credit to pay for it.
This is completely absurd on its face. It doesn't take a billion dollars of revenue a year to do this.
So, not familiar with the concept of "revenue" then? 'Cause revenue is not operating budget.
The line is drawn here such that these regulations would only affect very large companies. Because it's those very large companies that are not being reined in by plain-ol' negligence lawsuits.
What is the relationship between effect of lawsuits on company and sending people to jail for CIVIL liability?
The lawsuits are ineffective at getting very large corporations to care.
Let me put it this way: In a lawsuit, you can recover the value of what you lost. Someone destroys your car, you can sue and get the value of your car.
I was affected by the Equifax hack. Legally, the value lost to me in that hack is $0.
I am not a party to any transactions where that data has value (Equifax and it's customers), so I'm not out any money. "Someone may commit credit card fraud in the future" is not a basis for winning a lawsuit. If someone actually did commit credit card fraud, I would have to prove the data came from the Equifax hack and not, say, the Blue Cross hack where my data was also stolen. And that's not possible due to all the middlemen involved in getting that data to the people who actually commit fraud.
At best, I could demand Equifax pay for credit monitoring for some very limited period of time. And since Equifax already provides that service, they are out a very trivial amount of money - it costs them almost nothing to turn on the monitoring software they already have.
Which means civil liability provides exactly zero disincentive to Equifax's executives.
Negligence is whatever you can convince a judge and or jury negligence is.
Nope, it has an actual legal definition.
You're a big company you get hacked you get fined and sued no matter what the facts of the situation is.
And as I demonstrated above, the cost of those fines and lawsuits is negligible, and thus provides no disincentive for being negligent.
Heck, golden parachutes mean there's virtually no incentive for executives to avoid negligence even if fines were astronomical. They'd still make a ton of money before the shit hit the fan, and the shit hitting the fan is zero impediment for getting a new job (Hi Bob Nardeli!)
Why should how much a company makes dictate CRIMINAL liability of executive officers?
Because such a company has sufficient resources to actually fix the security holes identified by their security team.
Also, plain-ol' negligence gets the job done on smaller companies. Larger ones just factor the cost of fines and/or lawsuits into the decision.
Why should during an off-year when yearly revenues dip below some magic threshold the same executive officer have less CRIMINAL liability or vis versa?
Such line-crossing is not all that common. And you have to have some line to differentiate between a Mom-and-Pop and Equifax.
Why should executive officer of a small million dollar company have less CRIMINAL liability for the same exact behavior as a larger company?
The smaller company is usually restrained by the danger of lawsuits - they could actually destroy the business. Executives at larger companies (there's a reason I cited Equifax above) aren't.
Leave it to the lawyers to keep trying to make everyone liable for something even if they had nothing to do with it.
You should probably learn a bit about the concept of Negligence before commenting.
"We got hacked" isn't negligence. "Sir, There's a massive security hole here!", "I don't want to spend the money to fix it" is. The executives are in charge of making such a decision. That's why they get the big bucks.
Nice a law that turns arbitrary uncategorized unspecified civil violations into criminal ones.
Well, the fine executives over at ol' Equifax decided it was cheaper to just keep the security holes in place, and paid a pittance in civil liability.
Slashdot Mirror
In many places like here in Texas it is already the law that anyone over 18 carry ID.
Nope. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You are only required to provide an accurate name, date of birth and address to police if you are arrested. If you are not under arrest, you don't have to identify yourself. It is illegal to give a false identity though, so just refuse to identify yourself.
It is crazy that many countries in the world have already solved the things the US seem to struggle with.
We only struggle because the stated reason for voter ID laws is not the actual reason for voter ID laws.
Also, we don't run one election. We run 50 elections, each managed by one state. With every state having different rules.
Also, we have a sizable number of idiots who are absolutely terrified that a national ID card would be step 1 in the UN taking over the country. (Please ignore that we already have two national ID cards)
You answered you own question. The opposition to voter ID is because it is not:
As long as the ID system is universal and taxpayer funded
My state has a "free" voter ID. To get it, I need a certified copy of my birth certificate. That costs $50. It is possible to get one for free if I go to the county where I was born and pick one up in-person. But since that's on the other side of the country, it would cost a teeny bit more than $50.
I also need to confirm my address with information like a lease or utility bill. Which is a bit of a problem if I'm living with someone else, because they're the ones on the lease and the utilities are in their name.
When I attempted to get a driver's license when I moved to NY shortly after they started doing RealIDs, it took 9 attempts at the DMV before the clerk would accept the documentation. The reasons for objecting to a document changed each time, and documents that were acceptable on one visit were not acceptable on the next. These trips required me to go to the DMV during working hours. If I was not in a job where I could say "I'm running down to the DMV again", this would be a big problem.
Also, that local DMV office? Not located near public transportation either. Since I happened to have my own car, I could do those 9 trips easily. But bumming a ride 9 times would probably be difficult.
All these turn "voter ID', even if the ID itself is free, into a poll tax. Which is not Constitutional. And it's not Constitutional for the same reason poll taxes were originally struck down: The actual effect of voter ID laws is to disenfranchise poor people.
Btw, NY has a bit on the DMV form where you can register to vote while getting your driver's license. On the first 8 attempts, I checked that box. On attempt #9, I didn't, because I had registered elsewhere by that point. Could be coincidence, could be that I wasn't registering for the dominant political party in the area.
Also, Voter ID "solves" a problem that does not exist. In-person voter fraud happens only a tiny handful of times (2016 election had about 9 cases).
How do you know mega corporations arent stacking the deck to continue to screw us, the people, over if there is no cross reference?
Because mega corporations can not reliably choose the ~1M+ people who are not going to show up at the polls with perfect accuracy. Which means someone is going to show up to vote when someone else already voted in their name and raise a fuss. Also, they'd have to hire hundreds of thousands of fake voters, and at least one of them would talk. Over here in NC, our recent election fraud was uncovered when one of three employees talked. You think one of hundreds of thousands in the same conspiracy isn't going to blab about making a quick buck on election day?
If the mega corporations were going to fix the election, they'd do it by having the mega corporation that builds the voting machines/tabulators commit election fraud.
So, here in NC, a guy hired by the Republican candidate literally changed the vote on absentee ballots. He, and his employees, filled in ballots where the voter had left a particular race blank.
He, and his employees, also threw out absentee ballots where the voter did not vote for the Republican.
This is the second election where he appears to have done this. He wasn't caught.
Over in TX, a get-out-the-vote group used public records to detect people who might not be properly registered, and mailed them a registration form. Btw, they were not the only group to do this. No votes changed, no ballots thrown out.
Why on earth do you consider these equivalent?
Pssst....Mailings you consider misleading is just a teensy tiny bit different than literally changing the vote on absentee ballots. For example, only the latter is a crime.
When you see attempting to return the discussion to what actually happened as a partisan issue, you are the problem.
Democrats have no grounds to complain when Republicans filibuster a supreme court pick in the final year of a Democrat president (Obama's nomination of Garland) because Democrats started that tradition.
Really? Which nominee did they filibuster for over a year? (If you want to save some time, they didn't.)
Also, you're wrong about "filibustering" Garland. McConnell wouldn't even let there be a hearing in the Judiciary Committee, so there was no filibuster.
Democrats have no grounds to complain when Republicans refuse to impeach a sitting president, because during Obama's campaign he convinced his party not to impeach George Bush for cause
Wow do you not have a very good grasp of time.
The person who blocked impeachment was Pelosi. Obama's campaign had not started yet in January 2007, when Pelosi declared "Impeachment is off the table". Also, Obama at that point had very little institutional power, since he'd only been a Senator for a short time by that point.
(This despite Democrats holding firm majorities in both houses at the time.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Senate was 49+2 yielding a truly massive one seat majority.
House was 233 to 202, yielding a 31 seat majority.
For those who are not quite familiar with the Constitution, conviction in the Senate requires 67 votes.
Which 16 Republicans do you think would actually place party over country and convict? Keep in mind that almost all of those Senators are still in the Senate, and exactly zero of them are willing to put country over party under the Trump administration.
The non-streaming catalog is (was) greater and does not disappear due to arbitrary license expirations.
Still is, and first sale doctrine means studios can't yank their titles from the mail version.
Except the baker was happy to make a normal cake like he'd make for any wedding.
Nope. In all the cases that actually went to a courtroom, the baker refused to make a wedding cake at all. This was not about the cake topper having two men or two women. That's easy enough to get around with "I don't stock those, since there isn't much demand, so here's where you can go to buy one".
Also, the baker still had that "private club" option. But they wanted to be a regular business, which means they have to comply with the rules of a regular business.
Lastly, the idea that you "participate" in the event when you provide supplies for it is idiotic, and was only invented for two reasons. 1) So bigoted assholes could show just how bigoted they are, or 2) fraud. You really think gay couples were lining up to have their reception at a crappy pizza parlor in the middle of nowhere? Nope. But the owners of that place made about $2m by "taking a stand".
That was a joke about the lack of cords when you connect to a network over WiFi.
The layoffs in TFS were mostly in the marketing/PR/customer support parts of the companies. Very few were developers. So they're not in a good position to create a new gaming company.
If I'm a business serving the public, I have to. Because I have to serve all of the public.
If I'm a bigoted asshole, I can operate a "private club" that happens to bake cakes, and charge a $5 membership fee on the first cake you buy every year.
If I'm a bigoted asshole and want to show off just how much of an asshole I am, I can demand that I be excused from the law.
They're connecting to the service via WiFi.
Jokes on them though, I never buy anything on Steam unless it's = $20. Wait a year and get :D
the fully patched, bug-free, game-of-the-year edition. I let everyone else pay full price to be the
beta testers
You realize you can only reliably do this because of Steam, right?
Back in the old days, the "clearance" section at the game store was not all that well stocked with good titles.
You skipped over a very crucial word.
The difference is these people believe that they are smart
Here, lemme italicize it
The difference is these people believe that they are smart
They believe that they are smart. They actually fall on the typical distribution of intelligence. Perhaps with the very extreme "dumb" end cut off.
One of the ways you can tell they are not actually smart is they believe they are smart in every subject. Which is exactly the point I made above.
If the FCC is the government's form of regulating communications services in the United States how can they offer CAF funding to promote faster internet speeds but at same time the FCC claims it can't regulate it?
Well, one gives the ISPs money, so it is good. One prevents the ISPs from gouging others for money, so it is bad.
Intellectual consistency is not a requirement to run a business.
It's much easier in terms of capital to build new ISP than one of those.
Basic math must be very interesting in your world.
You have no right to use their platforms. The right of association means they have the right to choose who uses their platform.
Don't like it? Well then you really want net neutrality, so your new platform that accepts your speech has equal access to the Internet.
Uh, no.
The issue is detecting the problem early enough to deal with it requires an optional warning light.
Since it's optional, third-world airlines didn't buy it. Because they're a lot poorer than first-world airlines.
On the other hand, third-world airlines are way, way, way smarter than you. So they have that going for them, which is nice.
Further the person or persons who signed off on using just two sensors
One sensor.
The plane has two, but MCAS only reacts to one.
As someone who has stayed in my current job for over a decade
You're an idiot.
By staying at the same employer for 10 years, you've lost out on about 2-3 large raises you would have received by changing jobs. Depending on where you are in your career, you've missed out on 2-3 promotions too.
"Stay at the same employer for decades" died out when management decided layoffs were great for their bonuses, instead of something you do as a last ditch effort to avoid bankruptcy. Yes, it means institutional knowledge is constantly flooding out the door, but that's what management decided they wanted.
My credit score doesn't affect my ability to ride public transit, travel
Yet
get healthcare
You're kidding, right?
If you need some expensive medical treatment, but are not about to die in the next day or so without it, you will need approval from the hospital's billing department before your treatment. That approval is contingent on you either 1) paying for everything in cash, 2) paying all deductibles and co-pays in cash if your insurance approves, or 3) approval for financing. The last one is dependent on your FICO score. And arguably, #1 and #2 are also dependent on your FICO score because you're probably going to need to use some sort of credit to pay for it.
This is completely absurd on its face. It doesn't take a billion dollars of revenue a year to do this.
So, not familiar with the concept of "revenue" then? 'Cause revenue is not operating budget.
The line is drawn here such that these regulations would only affect very large companies. Because it's those very large companies that are not being reined in by plain-ol' negligence lawsuits.
What is the relationship between effect of lawsuits on company and sending people to jail for CIVIL liability?
The lawsuits are ineffective at getting very large corporations to care.
Let me put it this way: In a lawsuit, you can recover the value of what you lost. Someone destroys your car, you can sue and get the value of your car.
I was affected by the Equifax hack. Legally, the value lost to me in that hack is $0.
I am not a party to any transactions where that data has value (Equifax and it's customers), so I'm not out any money. "Someone may commit credit card fraud in the future" is not a basis for winning a lawsuit. If someone actually did commit credit card fraud, I would have to prove the data came from the Equifax hack and not, say, the Blue Cross hack where my data was also stolen. And that's not possible due to all the middlemen involved in getting that data to the people who actually commit fraud.
At best, I could demand Equifax pay for credit monitoring for some very limited period of time. And since Equifax already provides that service, they are out a very trivial amount of money - it costs them almost nothing to turn on the monitoring software they already have.
Which means civil liability provides exactly zero disincentive to Equifax's executives.
Negligence is whatever you can convince a judge and or jury negligence is.
Nope, it has an actual legal definition.
You're a big company you get hacked you get fined and sued no matter what the facts of the situation is.
And as I demonstrated above, the cost of those fines and lawsuits is negligible, and thus provides no disincentive for being negligent.
Heck, golden parachutes mean there's virtually no incentive for executives to avoid negligence even if fines were astronomical. They'd still make a ton of money before the shit hit the fan, and the shit hitting the fan is zero impediment for getting a new job (Hi Bob Nardeli!)
is it "negligent" to hire a competent staff, but the staff makes a mistake?
Nope.
It is negligent to hire a competent staff, have that staff warn you about security issues, and you decide to save money by not fixing them.
The more difficult line to draw is just how incompetent does your staff need to be before it's negligence. But that's what judges and juries are for.
Why should how much a company makes dictate CRIMINAL liability of executive officers?
Because such a company has sufficient resources to actually fix the security holes identified by their security team.
Also, plain-ol' negligence gets the job done on smaller companies. Larger ones just factor the cost of fines and/or lawsuits into the decision.
Why should during an off-year when yearly revenues dip below some magic threshold the same executive officer have less CRIMINAL liability or vis versa?
Such line-crossing is not all that common. And you have to have some line to differentiate between a Mom-and-Pop and Equifax.
Why should executive officer of a small million dollar company have less CRIMINAL liability for the same exact behavior as a larger company?
The smaller company is usually restrained by the danger of lawsuits - they could actually destroy the business. Executives at larger companies (there's a reason I cited Equifax above) aren't.
Leave it to the lawyers to keep trying to make everyone liable for something even if they had nothing to do with it.
You should probably learn a bit about the concept of Negligence before commenting.
"We got hacked" isn't negligence. "Sir, There's a massive security hole here!", "I don't want to spend the money to fix it" is. The executives are in charge of making such a decision. That's why they get the big bucks.
Nice a law that turns arbitrary uncategorized unspecified civil violations into criminal ones.
Well, the fine executives over at ol' Equifax decided it was cheaper to just keep the security holes in place, and paid a pittance in civil liability.