Less than a week ago, the overwhelming sentiment was that media mogul Barry Diller's opinion carried no weight because he couldn't possibly understand the real issues at play and had a vested interest to boot.
It'll be interesting to see how far the pendulum swings the other way for the opinion of Justin Trudeau, a politician and champion of centralized governmental control.
I'll go out on a limb and predict overwhelming support for Trudeau, regardless of his qualifications to speak on the subject and regardless of his own vested interest, simply because he has the "right" opinion.
I guess since you've moved on to a new topic, you agree there wasn't an issue under OP's criteria. It's like swatting flies sometimes.
I take your quote to be a selective excerpt from 42 U.S.C. 3604(c):
(c) To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination.
Now, considering the full statutory language, how does this situation meet it? The "notice, statement, or advertisement" must itself "indicate[] any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination" "with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling." That's not the case here.
Ticking a box saying you would like to focus your advertising dollars on people who have not ticked a box of their own expressing an "affinity" with certain demographics is not tantamount to saying you refuse to rent to someone who actually is a member of a protected group, or that you intend to refuse to do so.
Illegal discrimination occurs when the landlord:
- Includes preferences or limitations in a rental advertisement
- Denies the availability of a available rental dwelling or steers renters to a certain area based on race
Which of the above prohibitions do you think targeted advertising violates, and how?
- The advertisements include no preferences or limitations.
- Not showing someone an ad for a rental is not at all the same thing as denying that a rental is available if they affirmatively ask.
- The advertisements don't tell potential renters to rent from them because of the racial makeup of the neighborhood.
shoppers make a per-item fee (typically $0.40)—however, this is not per unit of that item.
Ars spoke with six Instacart shoppers who said that they have routinely been made to pick up several heavy items, such as cases of bottled water, soda, or ice. Those items, of course, not only have to be loaded into a shopping cart, and then into a car, but they must be also hand-carried to someone’s door—sometimes up flights of stairs. Shoppers are still paid a $0.40 per-item fee even if someone orders one, five, or 10 cases of bottled water.
This definition of an "item" creates a windfall for people/businesses ordering lots of things--often heavy, bulky ones. Instacart's pricing scheme makes them a good deal more competitive than typical delivery services, so the customers do the rational thing.
I have to wonder how much this entire issue would smooth out just by changing this into a true per-item fee.
Make 100K a year and live like you are 18 with your first apartment, all your life in SV.
Yes, you can make an informed, rational choice to do that.
Or, you can make an informed, rational choice to live in one of any number of other places in the country where the salary to cost-of-living ratio is much higher.
What you can't do is live exactly where you would prefer to live, under the exact living conditions you would prefer to have, for the exact amount of money you would prefer to pay.
That's a lesson that seems hard for millennials -- and quite a few adults as well.
you won't find what you want predictively using those parameters, you'll only find historical data later.
At least you admit you're seeking to fix a non-existent problem. For bonus points, reflect a bit on why it might not be the smartest thing in the world to allow the administrative state to seize control of an entire industry based solely on fear-mongering and FUD.
What makes you think this isn't just the beginning?
Because this isn't the beginning of anything. It's simply rolling back the state of regulation to what it was in 2015, before Wheeler's land grab. Your irrational paranoia isn't allowing you to see that.
Hmmm. I asked if there was a rational reason to think the sky would suddenly fall by reverting back to the 2015 status quo, and you replied by essentially asking how I know there's not a boogeyman under my bed.
My search continues for someone who can actually point to a meaningful, real-world problem rather than the byproduct of an over-fertile, paranoid imagination.
I'm still looking for a thoughtful, non-hyperbolic answer to my oft-repeated question on this subject: why is there any rational reason to think the sky is suddenly going to fall when this simply rolls us back to the status quo as it existed in 2015, less than two years ago?
This would carry more weight if: You weren't AC You cited your source, because I searched and can't find the official list of names to verify
Well, here I am and here's the source -- amazingly enough, one click on a link from TFA. You didn't search very hard at all, did you?
There are tons more fun ones, like:
Thalmayer, Isaiah: Restoration Project Manager, Point Blue Conservation Science Swanson, Diana: medicine Swanson, John: Social Sciences - Psychology, Retired Swanson, Patrick: Professor, Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Creighton University
It's crystal-clear this is just 15k+ random people signing a feel-good petition. Any claim that these signatories are "scientists" in general, much less ones in appropriate fields to make authoritative comments about the subject matter, is unadulterated horseshit.
SEC. 543. Notwithstanding the numerical limitation set forth in section 214(g)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(B)), the Secretary of Homeland Security, after consultation with the Secretary of Labor, and upon the determina- tion that the needs of American businesses cannot be satisfied in fiscal year 2017 with United States workers who are willing, qualified, and able to perform temporary nonagricultural labor, may increase the total number of aliens who may receive a visa under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b)) in such fiscal year above such limitation by not more than the highest number of H–2B nonimmigrants who participated in the H–2B returning worker program in any fiscal year in which returning workers were exempt from such numerical limitation.
They seem to be cracking down on the practice of finding unusual combinations of qualifications in the candidates (like BS in accounting, fluency in Kannada language and truck driving license), putting them all as necessary qualifications making it impossible for anyone else to apply.
So the employers sculpt job requirements around specific qualifications of foreigners, then whine that no "qualified" Americans exist? Disgraceful.
That's a null set. Maybe you should try reading the order itself rather than media articles about it.
and list of parties to the case
And that's Sci-Hub. Since they didn't even bother to show up to defend against a default judgment, I suspect even you can figure out how much of an effect an injunction against them is going to have.
The reason people are talking about the case isn't because "oh no how do you notify the parties" it is that "uh those named aren't parties to the case!" * * * Since you don't really understand why people are talking about it
Actually, I was the one that brought up that issue weeks ago -- let your eyes slowly but deliberately wander back to the top of this thread and read the very first sentence in my post. You're just embarrassing yourself at this point.
Great -- since it's so easy, please provide the full and complete list of entities ACS would have to serve to completely shut off access to Sci-Hub over the Internet (for the sake of this exercise, charitably assuming that all entities would immediately block Sci-Hub based only on receipt of the injunction, which in the real world would not be the case). I'll wait.
Thanks for the tip and it's great this data exists, but the fact that you had to tell me a specific pair of links to click on two different busy pages to get to this information on an external website is proof enough that very few people are going to drill down to it in the normal course, so this is transparency in name only. IMO those pie charts at the very least should be on the pages themselves, just like how author(s) are typically credited on any other sort of article.
When we reach a point where Russia is reflexively blamed for every hack or hack attempt, every piece of questionable news, every disagreeable online posting, and every boogeyman in the closet, it's just a matter of time before the mob reaches a true fever pitch and declares the world would be sunshine and unicorns again without Russia.
And that's when things really start to go sideways.
In this case, the winners being the ones that have the time/money/inclination to keep pushing back with their own particular edits until the people with less time/money/inclination give up. I'm not sure how you could expect a different outcome given the (lack of) organizational structure.
Given this, I think they're going to have to do something significant to increase transparency (e.g., a pane that shows the top 5-10 contributors for the page and the percentage of content each contributed, and/or other comparable metrics) or what credibility they have is going to go downhill really fast.
It's called the home advantage. You can expect their lawyers to say the word "Israeli" very loudly in court.
That sort of strategy generally doesn't end well. A lot of judges will agree before the trial begins that the parties can't mention irrelevant and potentially prejudicial things like the nationality of the patent owner without first explaining to the judge why it's important to do so in a particular circumstance.
Slashdot Mirror
Less than a week ago, the overwhelming sentiment was that media mogul Barry Diller's opinion carried no weight because he couldn't possibly understand the real issues at play and had a vested interest to boot.
It'll be interesting to see how far the pendulum swings the other way for the opinion of Justin Trudeau, a politician and champion of centralized governmental control.
I'll go out on a limb and predict overwhelming support for Trudeau, regardless of his qualifications to speak on the subject and regardless of his own vested interest, simply because he has the "right" opinion.
I guess since you've moved on to a new topic, you agree there wasn't an issue under OP's criteria. It's like swatting flies sometimes.
I take your quote to be a selective excerpt from 42 U.S.C. 3604(c):
(c) To make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination.
Now, considering the full statutory language, how does this situation meet it? The "notice, statement, or advertisement" must itself "indicate[] any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination" "with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling." That's not the case here.
Ticking a box saying you would like to focus your advertising dollars on people who have not ticked a box of their own expressing an "affinity" with certain demographics is not tantamount to saying you refuse to rent to someone who actually is a member of a protected group, or that you intend to refuse to do so.
Illegal discrimination occurs when the landlord:
- Includes preferences or limitations in a rental advertisement
- Denies the availability of a available rental dwelling or steers renters to a certain area based on race
Which of the above prohibitions do you think targeted advertising violates, and how?
- The advertisements include no preferences or limitations.
- Not showing someone an ad for a rental is not at all the same thing as denying that a rental is available if they affirmatively ask.
- The advertisements don't tell potential renters to rent from them because of the racial makeup of the neighborhood.
I really don't see how this fits.
Please don't go down that road, Slashdot.
You must be new here. They pretty much went all-in on a clickbait model a long time ago.
From the Ars article:
shoppers make a per-item fee (typically $0.40)— however, this is not per unit of that item.
Ars spoke with six Instacart shoppers who said that they have routinely been made to pick up several heavy items, such as cases of bottled water, soda, or ice. Those items, of course, not only have to be loaded into a shopping cart, and then into a car, but they must be also hand-carried to someone’s door—sometimes up flights of stairs. Shoppers are still paid a $0.40 per-item fee even if someone orders one, five, or 10 cases of bottled water.
This definition of an "item" creates a windfall for people/businesses ordering lots of things--often heavy, bulky ones. Instacart's pricing scheme makes them a good deal more competitive than typical delivery services, so the customers do the rational thing.
I have to wonder how much this entire issue would smooth out just by changing this into a true per-item fee.
WTF does Barry Diller know about how net neutrality works?
Clearly not as much as quasi-anonymous Slashdot commentator VeryFluffyBunny.
Make 100K a year and live like you are 18 with your first apartment, all your life in SV.
Yes, you can make an informed, rational choice to do that.
Or, you can make an informed, rational choice to live in one of any number of other places in the country where the salary to cost-of-living ratio is much higher.
What you can't do is live exactly where you would prefer to live, under the exact living conditions you would prefer to have, for the exact amount of money you would prefer to pay.
That's a lesson that seems hard for millennials -- and quite a few adults as well.
you won't find what you want predictively using those parameters, you'll only find historical data later.
At least you admit you're seeking to fix a non-existent problem. For bonus points, reflect a bit on why it might not be the smartest thing in the world to allow the administrative state to seize control of an entire industry based solely on fear-mongering and FUD.
What makes you think this isn't just the beginning?
Because this isn't the beginning of anything. It's simply rolling back the state of regulation to what it was in 2015, before Wheeler's land grab. Your irrational paranoia isn't allowing you to see that.
Hmmm. I asked if there was a rational reason to think the sky would suddenly fall by reverting back to the 2015 status quo, and you replied by essentially asking how I know there's not a boogeyman under my bed.
My search continues for someone who can actually point to a meaningful, real-world problem rather than the byproduct of an over-fertile, paranoid imagination.
I'm still looking for a thoughtful, non-hyperbolic answer to my oft-repeated question on this subject: why is there any rational reason to think the sky is suddenly going to fall when this simply rolls us back to the status quo as it existed in 2015, less than two years ago?
Dry humour often goes over their heads as well.
Who bloody cares?
I could get more than 15k random signatures on a statement saying that AGW is horseshit.
That's pretty much the corollary to what these folks did.
In both cases people would rightly ask, "so what?"
This would carry more weight if:
You weren't AC
You cited your source, because I searched and can't find the official list of names to verify
Well, here I am and here's the source -- amazingly enough, one click on a link from TFA. You didn't search very hard at all, did you?
There are tons more fun ones, like:
Thalmayer, Isaiah: Restoration Project Manager, Point Blue Conservation Science
Swanson, Diana: medicine
Swanson, John: Social Sciences - Psychology, Retired
Swanson, Patrick: Professor, Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Creighton University
It's crystal-clear this is just 15k+ random people signing a feel-good petition. Any claim that these signatories are "scientists" in general, much less ones in appropriate fields to make authoritative comments about the subject matter, is unadulterated horseshit.
There's nothing to "get away with" -- Congress explicitly authorized the increase in the FY 2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act:
SEC. 543. Notwithstanding the numerical limitation set forth
in section 214(g)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(B)), the Secretary of Homeland Security, after
consultation with the Secretary of Labor, and upon the determina-
tion that the needs of American businesses cannot be satisfied
in fiscal year 2017 with United States workers who are willing,
qualified, and able to perform temporary nonagricultural labor,
may increase the total number of aliens who may receive a visa
under section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) of such Act (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b)) in such fiscal year above such limitation by
not more than the highest number of H–2B nonimmigrants who
participated in the H–2B returning worker program in any fiscal
year in which returning workers were exempt from such numerical
limitation.
They seem to be cracking down on the practice of finding unusual combinations of qualifications in the candidates (like BS in accounting, fluency in Kannada language and truck driving license), putting them all as necessary qualifications making it impossible for anyone else to apply.
So the employers sculpt job requirements around specific qualifications of foreigners, then whine that no "qualified" Americans exist? Disgraceful.
the companies the judge named
That's a null set. Maybe you should try reading the order itself rather than media articles about it.
and list of parties to the case
And that's Sci-Hub. Since they didn't even bother to show up to defend against a default judgment, I suspect even you can figure out how much of an effect an injunction against them is going to have.
The reason people are talking about the case isn't because "oh no how do you notify the parties" it is that "uh those named aren't parties to the case!"
* * *
Since you don't really understand why people are talking about it
Actually, I was the one that brought up that issue weeks ago -- let your eyes slowly but deliberately wander back to the top of this thread and read the very first sentence in my post. You're just embarrassing yourself at this point.
So it is not hard, is not a lot of work.
Great -- since it's so easy, please provide the full and complete list of entities ACS would have to serve to completely shut off access to Sci-Hub over the Internet (for the sake of this exercise, charitably assuming that all entities would immediately block Sci-Hub based only on receipt of the injunction, which in the real world would not be the case). I'll wait.
Thanks for the tip and it's great this data exists, but the fact that you had to tell me a specific pair of links to click on two different busy pages to get to this information on an external website is proof enough that very few people are going to drill down to it in the normal course, so this is transparency in name only. IMO those pie charts at the very least should be on the pages themselves, just like how author(s) are typically credited on any other sort of article.
BitCoin are unregulated investment instruments. They can't keep climbing indefinitely and some people will lose their shirts.
Wow, now that you mention it, I've never heard of a single regulated investment instrument where anything like that happened.
Yes, history doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes.
When we reach a point where Russia is reflexively blamed for every hack or hack attempt, every piece of questionable news, every disagreeable online posting, and every boogeyman in the closet, it's just a matter of time before the mob reaches a true fever pitch and declares the world would be sunshine and unicorns again without Russia.
And that's when things really start to go sideways.
You know that on iOS, unlike Android, you can update to the latest OS version without buying a new phone, right ?
Yes, that's technically true -- you don't have to buy a new phone until the update completes.
In this case, the winners being the ones that have the time/money/inclination to keep pushing back with their own particular edits until the people with less time/money/inclination give up. I'm not sure how you could expect a different outcome given the (lack of) organizational structure.
Given this, I think they're going to have to do something significant to increase transparency (e.g., a pane that shows the top 5-10 contributors for the page and the percentage of content each contributed, and/or other comparable metrics) or what credibility they have is going to go downhill really fast.
It's called the home advantage. You can expect their lawyers to say the word "Israeli" very loudly in court.
That sort of strategy generally doesn't end well. A lot of judges will agree before the trial begins that the parties can't mention irrelevant and potentially prejudicial things like the nationality of the patent owner without first explaining to the judge why it's important to do so in a particular circumstance.