The Constitution's "Full faith and credit" clause, Federal Supremacy, and a "law of the land" legal tradition is how the "New Yorker in New Jersey" issue is handled. There's also the matter of the Social Contract, binding everyone to the outcome of a vote. Britain broke the contract, rescinding rights already possessed and imposing laws from afar, cutting the colonists out of the decision making process.
Keep in mind, the colonists were British citizens, and had all the rights that entails. When Britain ceased treating them as citizens, well, the Declaration of Independance covers the response, it's legal and philosophical justification, and lists the grievances that motivated it.
It's a little more complicated than that. In foreign affairs, information is always imperfect, and both its presence and absence can fuel distrust. According to some approaches, transferring control of anything weakens you and strengthens your enemies.
International relations are complex. In many ways the situation is one of a Hobbesian state-of-nature, where the only one you can trust is yourself. Under such conditions, it doesn't matter whether or not you understand what you might be giving up, it only matters that something is being given up as that necessarily weakens your relative position.
I don't think that's the right approach to this particular issue, but it is in others.
Britain did a lot of things that made a lot of colonists angry. More than anything, it was that all local authority was being transferred back to Britain, thousands of miles away, and their political rights were being taken along for the ride. As they did in Britain, the colonists had the right to vote, they had local and regional representative governments, they had courts and laws, they had someone to go to if they had a grievance. Parliament was taking all of it away.
Smugglers might not have been so upset if they could have still gone to a local assemblyman to say, "don't do this!", but suddenly anyone who wanted to do so had to sail back to Britain, where they would be ignored.
Well what you're talking about with playable age-ranges and such are the job of the actor's agent or the actor themselves if they don't have an agent. It's part of the headshot packet they send to casting agents. Which is another point that makes this whole thing look ridiculous - casting agents don't need imdb, it's a public version of their own databases.
My credit union does MFA, are banks slacking? Though that's hardly the most out-of-date part of their industry. Hopefully the absence of MFA isn't something that generates revenue for them, or like their other antiquated processes it will never change. Like how when you think you're making an electronic transfer but they're mailing a check because an actual electronic transfer means paying extra for a wire transfer like it was 1896.
Banks are slow. They're still stuck on systems and processes built around the limitations of 30-40 year old tech. Maybe blockchains will allow them to move away from the now unnecessary ACH middleman, and end the way they have abused it to maximize fees.
Well, it is information relevant to a valid and legitimate qualification, so including age as a factor in casting decisions isn't arbitrary discrimination, it's necessary. Plus restricting it on imdb is pointless when there's still google.
No, that was more like "Laws imposed upon the governed without their just consent are invalid". Or, if you like, "We don't have to obey laws that we didn't get to vote on in any way."
You mean the global Seven Years War that Britain started by attacking the French colonies in modern Canada? Gee, I wonder why the colonists would have been upset by Britain starting a war with their neighbors and then having taxes imposed on them to pay for it without being given any say on the matter.
There were multiple taxes that upset the Colonies, many of which were 100% increases (not having existed previously). What really got them upset wasn't that there were taxes, but that they didn't have say in the matter. Hence, "No Taxation Without Representation!"
Well, no, not really. For one, many of the colonies themselves were charted as corporations, as were many businesses within. In fact, it was the Virginia Corporation that established the first permanent British colony and sent off the single most valuable cargo shipment in history (first shipment of tobacco), driving Britain's interest in colonizing North America. And of course, Socialism wouldn't exist for another century or so.
Long story short, don't be so hard on corporations in general (some specific corps deserve it though). The nation probably wouldn't exist without them.
There was a rather lengthy list of grievances, taxes being only one.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
I don't know if it was legal or not, right or not, or whatever. I do know that at least one FCC commissioner is going to be at each debate, each convention, and any major party or inter-party event; so it really pays to make sure all your i's are dotted and t's are crossed.
Look at what they're calling discrimination and see if that fits with your model.
Age discrimination in IT means not hiring a qualified older worker. In casting, the role could be a teenager, so someone in their late 20's/early 30's isn't qualified. California is calling that discrimination. I call it having believable portrayals of the characters.
I don't see how it could lead to discrimination in casting. If the character is a certain age, then filling the role with an actor of that age instead of one 10 years older or younger isn't discrimination, it's good casting.
Only California could think having teenagers playing teenagers is discriminatory.
What, hiring an actor that's actually the same age as the character is discrimination? What about race discrimination when they don't hire Asian actors to portray black characters? Or the blatant gender discrimination in having a male actor play the lead in "Sully"?
I heard one of the original 90210 actresses supporting this by talking about how she had to lie about her age because she was 27 and trying to get a job playing a teenager. That's not someone being a victim of age discrimination, that's sensible casting. Which the show didn't have by the way - it was famous for having the kids played by actors way too old for the roles.
Well, what I'm saying is that the commission was being disingenuous in its ruling. I think what they're really trying to do is get a hold of Apple's profits and make Ireland less attractive to multinationals.
If Ireland had exempted Apple from value-added, property or payroll taxes, that would have impacted the bottom line and represented actual State Aid. However, profits are what you have after competing (including reinvestment in R&D, marketing, opening and running brick and mortar stores, etc.), so logically taxes on those profits can't affect competitiveness. Hence my calling BS on the commission's move.
Slashdot Mirror
the latest and most advanced?
Keep in mind, the colonists were British citizens, and had all the rights that entails. When Britain ceased treating them as citizens, well, the Declaration of Independance covers the response, it's legal and philosophical justification, and lists the grievances that motivated it.
International relations are complex. In many ways the situation is one of a Hobbesian state-of-nature, where the only one you can trust is yourself. Under such conditions, it doesn't matter whether or not you understand what you might be giving up, it only matters that something is being given up as that necessarily weakens your relative position.
I don't think that's the right approach to this particular issue, but it is in others.
Fear? It's a matter of ceding control, so it is not fear but distrust that motivates resistance.
https://youtu.be/bMehSfTmnbY
Smugglers might not have been so upset if they could have still gone to a local assemblyman to say, "don't do this!", but suddenly anyone who wanted to do so had to sail back to Britain, where they would be ignored.
Well what you're talking about with playable age-ranges and such are the job of the actor's agent or the actor themselves if they don't have an agent. It's part of the headshot packet they send to casting agents. Which is another point that makes this whole thing look ridiculous - casting agents don't need imdb, it's a public version of their own databases.
My credit union does MFA, are banks slacking? Though that's hardly the most out-of-date part of their industry. Hopefully the absence of MFA isn't something that generates revenue for them, or like their other antiquated processes it will never change. Like how when you think you're making an electronic transfer but they're mailing a check because an actual electronic transfer means paying extra for a wire transfer like it was 1896.
Banks are slow. They're still stuck on systems and processes built around the limitations of 30-40 year old tech. Maybe blockchains will allow them to move away from the now unnecessary ACH middleman, and end the way they have abused it to maximize fees.
Well, it is information relevant to a valid and legitimate qualification, so including age as a factor in casting decisions isn't arbitrary discrimination, it's necessary. Plus restricting it on imdb is pointless when there's still google.
No, that was more like "Laws imposed upon the governed without their just consent are invalid". Or, if you like, "We don't have to obey laws that we didn't get to vote on in any way."
You mean the global Seven Years War that Britain started by attacking the French colonies in modern Canada? Gee, I wonder why the colonists would have been upset by Britain starting a war with their neighbors and then having taxes imposed on them to pay for it without being given any say on the matter.
There were multiple taxes that upset the Colonies, many of which were 100% increases (not having existed previously). What really got them upset wasn't that there were taxes, but that they didn't have say in the matter. Hence, "No Taxation Without Representation!"
Long story short, don't be so hard on corporations in general (some specific corps deserve it though). The nation probably wouldn't exist without them.
I don't know if it was legal or not, right or not, or whatever. I do know that at least one FCC commissioner is going to be at each debate, each convention, and any major party or inter-party event; so it really pays to make sure all your i's are dotted and t's are crossed.
Age discrimination in IT means not hiring a qualified older worker. In casting, the role could be a teenager, so someone in their late 20's/early 30's isn't qualified. California is calling that discrimination. I call it having believable portrayals of the characters.
Only California could think having teenagers playing teenagers is discriminatory.
I heard one of the original 90210 actresses supporting this by talking about how she had to lie about her age because she was 27 and trying to get a job playing a teenager. That's not someone being a victim of age discrimination, that's sensible casting. Which the show didn't have by the way - it was famous for having the kids played by actors way too old for the roles.
Well, I did say I wasn't an accountant...
Don't knock it till you've tried it. Rocks make great insulators and don't wear out like roofs do.
Is there an RFC for IP via Morse code?
If Ireland had exempted Apple from value-added, property or payroll taxes, that would have impacted the bottom line and represented actual State Aid. However, profits are what you have after competing (including reinvestment in R&D, marketing, opening and running brick and mortar stores, etc.), so logically taxes on those profits can't affect competitiveness. Hence my calling BS on the commission's move.
I opened the comments for the specific purpose of seeing if anyone did. So thanks!
Consider your audience dude. I'm betting that football trivia isn't a strength of most slashdotters. For example, what's FSB?