If we have the technology and resources (and in a first world country, we DO have the resources) in our society to cure the sick, aren't we morally obligated to do so?
Good question. Your question, however, ignores the issue of WHO PAYS for the cure.
Should our government, made up of ALL, force ALL taxpayers to pay for it, or should paying for it be a matter of personal conscience? (And should it then exempt half the population from paying because they don't 'make enough' to pay taxes? If this is a true moral imperative, then doesn't it apply to the people making less than the minimum AGI as well as those who make more? Can true moral standard truly depend on how much money you have?)
Do you allow those who disagree with you that it is a moral imperative for others to pay for the sicknesses of some the right to disagree in any significant way, or do you force them to participate in the process by using tax dollars? Is this how freedom operates?
Charities have existed for a very long time and aren't taxpayer funded, or shouldn't be anyway. St. Judes, the Red Cross, Ronald McDonald house, and a very very very large number of others, exist to provide the charity that is the basis for your "moral imperative" without needing to apply it to those who differ in their opinion. Those charities are harmed every time the government steps in to raise taxes to provide the service. People can honestly and ethically say "if my tax dollars do this, I don't need to donate...". Sadly, they lose the positive reinforcement of the act of charity, so while some gain, many more lose.
So yes, we should cure what we can, but no, I don't believe that forcing everyone to pay for it is the right solution.
But, as you said, these issues are already provided for with a passport.
No, the issue of checking other country's criminal databases are not provided for with a passport. Someone holding a UK passport, for example, entering the US, is checked in the US database, but any crimes he's committed in Greece would not show up there.
So why do we need a global repository to manage this?
Because we are becoming a global society?
And why does Country 1 need to know that I travelled to Country 2 three years ago?
I don't know that they do. They should be able to know that you were convicted of smuggling drugs into Country 2 the last time you went there, however.
Especially if my homeland is Country 3? Because that's the big difference I see in this.
What's the big difference? Did you use acetone to remove the entry stamp from the passport you apparently have no trouble with? The stamp that country 2 made in your passport with a date and time of entry, and maybe a date and time of departure? If you don't remove those stamps, then you're accepting the fact that any following countries can tell where you've been just by looking at the passport you hand them to get into their country. Well, every few years the clock resets and you get a clean passport, but you start collecting stamps again as soon as you travel with it.
And yes, I've heard of countries that are very interested in looking at the stamps in passports. Where is your difference now?
1) You're suggesting a capital punishment for a civil offense.
Uhhh, crossing the border illegally is not a civil offense, it is a criminal felony. Carrying illegal drugs while doing so is also a felony.
3) This won't stop people from trying to get into the country, it will just funnel them into even more dangerous and desperate situations,
Eliminating one avenue of illegal activity does not make someone responsible for the other illegal activities that people choose to participate in. How many times have you seen a city government sued by the family of a drug addict because the city arrested the guy's regular dealer and he had to deal with someone else and got shot while doing so? Not gonna happen.
4) Remember the Berlin Wall? Remember people being horrified at the idea of guards shooting people because they wanted a better life? How is your plan any different from what they did (beyond the superficial one of keeping people in instead of keeping them out).
You already know the difference, but you think it is "superficial". It isn't. It's the significant difference. A nation shouldn't have the right to demand that people stay in; a nation cannot survive without the right to exclude. Not even the Evil Satan US of A tries to keep people in. Every time I've travelled out of the US, there has never been a US agent checking my papers to make sure I can leave. The airline has people doing it to make sure I can get IN where I'm going and they aren't stuck flying me back to the US, but the fact I'm leaving -- don't let the door hit me in the butt on the way out is what the US says.
5) Do you have any idea how much it costs to train and equip a sniper? Do you have any idea of how many you'd need to man the entire border?
Do you have any idea how much it costs to install an alarm system? Let's just put up a sign that says "Monitored by Bracewell" with a few dummy cameras.
That works to deter crime because there is some reasonable chance that the alarm really exists. So, put up the signs defining the DMZ and then rotate the snipers from position to postition on a random basis. Fewer snipers are required.
And while it does cost a lot to train a sniper to be successful under battlefield conditions, this would be a good and productive way of honing the shooting skills without really endangering the sniper himself. It would save money in recurrent training.
There is currently NO LEGAL WAY for migrants from Mexico on south to come into the US.
That is just plain nonsense. It took less than five minutes of looking at the US State Deparment website to find more than one way for Mexican immigrants to legally enter the US. Are there limits? Of course. But to claim NO LEGAL WAY is just patently untrue.
That bears repeating: THERE IS NO LEGAL WAY for them to do what they're doing.
Say it twice, maybe it will become true? No. Sorry. Even were there no legal way to do something, that is not an excuse for them doing it illegally, or a reason not to enforce the law they know they are breaking when they do it.
There is no legal way for me to walk out of a pharmacy with oxycodone (other than getting a prescription, which makes my claim about "no legal way" patently false, but for the sake of the argument...). Should that exempt me from being arrested when I walk into a pharmacy and take what I want? Of course not.
If we were serious about immigration reform, we would at least provide these people a way to comply with the law, before getting all upset that they don't.
If there is no legal method of entry, then there is a trivial way of complying with the law: don't enter. As it stands, there are existing legal methods of entry, which they can comply with by obeying the law.
Trying to argue that there should be some legal way for someone to break the law is just stupid. I'm sorry, there is no better way of putting it.
The predictions contained in the Bible (and in the works of Nostradamus, Mother Shipton, the Koran, etc) all are so nebulous as to be applicable to virtually any time in history, rendering them utterly useless.
Not utterly. They are a statement that bad things can come to pass unless we are watchful, and this is what to watch for. I'm not particulary worried whether the prediction applies to a plan from the Barons and Earls in 16th century England to require the peasants to have the Baron's number tatooed on their forehead if they want to buy grain, or a global electronic payment system replacing all cash in the 21st.
Just another data point in the debate of who/what the beast is: Seventh Day Adventists will tell you, with a pretty reasonable argument, that the beast is or involves the Catholic Church. Word to the wise, ok?
The closest thing to an exceptions are forcable felonies and certain cases where law enforcement is authorized to use lethal force. But in both cases it's a matter of practicality and the individuals have a clear ability to avoid it.
Sounds like this would be a matter of practicality where a felony is taking place.
And here's a hint for those who don't understand how to avoid becoming a casualty of the system: DON'T GO INTO THE DMZ. Sounds like a "clear ability to avoid it" to me.
So, now that we've put this proposal smack dab into the middle of existing and acceptable procedures, what's the reason not to do it?
Clue: I'm not saying we should do it, just that your reason not to was already contradicted by your admission that there are existing situations that would allow it.
... a pretty reasonable description for someone from that time period to come up with for a system that requires migrant workers to register for an ID before they're allowed to work.
You mean like a social security number?
This article is about registering for an ID before they are allowed to cross the border, whether or not they are going to work. Sorta like the PASSPORTS we already require people to have, but with the ability to tie into an international criminal database instead of just the national one.
Why can't we live our lives in a matter of micro-transactions without everyone knowing what you are doing? I mean, do I really need a global ID to buy a loaf of bread or visit the someone (say, a doctor) and pay them in cash?
Do you typically cross a national border to buy a loaf of bread or visit your doctor? Why would you think you needed a global id used for border control and migrants if you don't cross a border, and how do you deal with the requirement for id and recordkeeping that already exist if you do?
Why would you think that an ID you use to cross the border to buy your loaf of bread would stop you from paying for it in cash, or for a doctor the same way?
If people lived their own lives to the extent that they, as an individual, can afford there would be no need for IDs to make sure you are getting your fair ration.
So live your life to the extent that you can without crossing a border and you won't need either a passport or a global id used to cross borders.
Unfortunately, you can live your life to the extent you can afford and it will not stop anyone else from doing so, so their actions make it a requirement for everyone to have an ID for certain things. I mean, a welfare office, for example, cannot simply ask every person who walks in "are you a welfare recipient" when the line of people queue up asking for their welfare money.
Why do you need to prove who you are? Honestly. What services do you benefit from that require a global ID card?
You know, if there were only some form of identification that would allow migrants and others to travel across national borders while allowing those nations the ability to identify criminals who want to enter their country...
Wait a minute. It is called a "passport". We already have a reasonably global system in place. It appears that Interpol is looking for a system that is common enough between states that they can also check interpol records for criminal histories, as well as the individual country.
Did we miss the part about "migrants" and "border control"? If you don't want to be in someone's database, you probably don't want to travel to another country where they control their borders anyway because they'll be keeping a record of you entering, and that border is where you'd need this card.
I'm suing you for patent violation, and I just patented an improvement where you don't even have to have an original. I'm calling it the "Psychic Copier".
It does require your employees to remove their tinfoil hats, however. My research department is working on a solution...
If you put the product in terms which are advantageous to the listener (usually money), then you spark their interest.
Mr. Manager, I can reduce your cost by $5000/month. My copier doesn't do 40 pages per minute, it has no disk, it has no networking capability, and it cannot sort, collate, or staple.
It is a cardboard box. Your users lay their originals on top, wait ten seconds, and then walk away with the originals.
This saves you money on paper needlessly used. It shuts down one major method of employee theft of intellectual property. It doesn't waste people's time waiting for the copier to warm up before it can copy. It saves you in both clerical (filing) time and waste management.
I'll make a fortune. And I have the patent already. Does anyone want to subscribe to my newsletter?
Then how about I go and burn a cross in front of your house, being careful to stay on public property and have a burn permit?
The "in front of your house" bit takes it out of the generic statement of opinion category and well into the hate speech regime. Do it in your own backyard where you aren't making it clear it applies to someone specific and you'd get away with it scott free, other than for basic 'when can you burn things' laws.
Don't be absurd. Nothing about says you have give anything away.
Nor does anything say anything about having to do business with an Israeli company. But that hasn't stopped you.
By the way, buying something for $1/oz isn't "giving it away", it is a sale just as valid as any other. If this law really says what you pretend, they why isn't all our gold over in Israel already?
There are other sections* of the statue that I didn't post, that validate even more my original premise.
So cite them. I cannot read your mind as to what you think says what you think it says. If you can cite them, that is.
The 'examples'..."They are illustrative, not comprehensive." nuff said there
I didn't say they were comprehensive, and you know it. I said none of the example deals with not being able to say 'no' to an order from an Israeli company. For a law that you claim makes this business mandatory, you'd think there would be one example that shows it. There isn't.
Regardless of what section 10 says,...
Yes, regardless of what the law actually says, you'll keep up the charade and try to whip up hysteria.
It will be abused just like RICO.
Right. It's been in place since what, 1977, and you see so many lawsuits about it. More FUD on your part.
It is a law for the specific benefit of one country that is not the United States,...
That very well may be, but it certainly doesn't mean you can't say 'no' when doing business with an Israeli company as you claim. I'm not debating the value or justification, just countering the ridiculous claims you made about the law.
And once again, the one section you quote HAS A CONTEXT that you are clearly ignoring. The refusal to do business MUST be based on a boycott request -- but no, it doesn't have to be a direct request. It can be one like "vessels used to carry goods must be certified to enter Bahrain docks" (as one example used). Israeli vessels, specifically, don't meet that requirement, so that's an indirect boycott request.
Another example was services provided "as specified in the laws of the destination country", which, again, is an indirect boycott request when the laws of that country include an Israeli boycott. But all it takes to get around that is to add a clause "unless US laws contravene" or words to that effect, since US law prohibits (contravenes) the boycott laws of the destination country.
But you have to read the examples to understand this.
Now, if you have a cite for a part of that law which clearly says "you can't say 'no'" to an offer of business from Israel, provide it. If it is just more of the same ignorance of the context, please stop.
The only consistent position is that all censorware is unethical and should not be sold at all.
I am a private citizen who is open-minded enough to want to share my wireless access point with those who cannot afford it. I do not want to have my bandwidth hogged by people playing videos of whatever, or visiting goatse. I have every right, and every ethical justification, to buy "censorware" to limit what the people I am giving free network connectivity to can use it for. If you don't like my free network access, don't use it.
I run a company and need to keep my people from wasting my money and their time (which I pay for) by going to porno websites, just to keep the feds off my back if nothing else. I have every ethical justification for buying "censorware" to limit what people using my network can access. I'm paying for it.
The only consistent position is that censorware is a TOOL that can be used for good or bad, but it is not inherently unethical.
When you leave out the part about refusals being based on a boycott requirement, yes. The section you picked from has context, which you clearly have ignored for some reason.
If the law said what you think it does, then nothing would stop an Israeli firm from offering to buy gold bullion from a gold dealer in the US for $1/oz. He can't say no, according to you.
Further, according to you, any company that does NO overseas business would be violating this law through a pattern of refusal, but unfortunately, that simply isn't true.
What the law REALLY says is that a company in the US cannot agree to boycott restrictions as part of dealing with an overseas company. Look at all the examples they provide. I've not seen a single one that talks about orders from Israel, only from countries that are participating in the arab boycott. It certainly does not say that I must do business with anyone from Israel or go to jail.
Now, if you have a specific citation that says otherwise, please provide it. Simply ignoring the context of a sentence isn't an adequate citation.
An offer from Israel is an offer no company can refuse. It is illegal to say no. Howdya like that??
Citation required. I see no part of that law which prohibits a company in the US from saying "no" to any offer of purchase or sale from Israel. The prohibition is that the reason must not be based on a boycott requirement from an outside company.
Do you have a specific citation within 760 that supports your claim?
Exactly. I don't see how companies are going to be motivated to stop selling to these countries, or cut off existing ones.
How does one prevent someone from using software that they have purchased? Does Apple or Microsoft have that right?
The summary seems to think that all it takes is to stop sending updates, but then it tells us that ending the updates won't stop the use. The user can MANUALLY enter sites to block. Even though the database can be edited by the user, the summary calls this "frozen". An odd definition of frozen, I'd say.
Do we not imagine that someone who is applying network blocking software on a country-wide basis might have a team of people on staff who are constantly updating the "frozen" database? I would hazard to guess that the number of people updating the commercial database is fewer than what a tyrant would employ to do it for his regiem. They also probably subscribe to this guy's newletter to get the latest info on proxies. Or they will now, since this guy has bragged about his important he is in the process of freedom fighting.
Let's get a grip. Ending updates for a commercial product doesn't mean the product is suddenly useless. That is PHB thinking. In reality, ending updates often makes the product more usable because the author no longer can slip in changes to limit use. Compare this to Microsoft automatic updates which, too often, cripple the system that it is inteded to support.
This is the "gubment" we're talking about. If they don't care that the gas tax is being taxed on gas used for things other than driving on public roads,
Another fallacy. While they would prefer not to, they do reimburse non-road use when the proper forms are filled out. Farmers and pilots of aircraft that use automobile gasoline do this on a regular (yearly?) basis, I think as part of the income tax filing. Since that system is already in place and used, it is a well-known issue that the GPS system would have to cover.
Or is there some sort of gas tax rebate you can apply for that I am also unaware of?
Oregon State University just had a shooting "incident" and activated their alert system. Here's the first paragraph from the alert:
This message is to inform OSU students, faculty and staff that shots were fired this morning at an off-campus residence where multiple students reside. There were no injuries in the incident. However, we are notifying campus community members, as there have been no suspects arrested in the matter.
No mention of where this happened or what time. This was sent four hours after the event.
A previous, more timely notification of a different incident near campus (at a frat house) resulted in a flock of students descending on the area to rubberneck. I can understand why they don't publish specific location data, but "a shooter somewhere in town shooting at someone and we haven't caught him yet" isn't very helpful.
*Vehicles already have odometers, and don't all states require periodic emissions inspections? If they really wanted to tax based on actual miles traveled, they can just copy down the mileage then.
Others have covered the "every state has inspections" fallacy.
Copy down the milage. Check. Now deal with the fact that not every mile driven in a vehicle is driven on public roads subject to tax.
The most common method of recording this mileage, and that which Oregon has looked at doing, is to use GPS and record where and when you've driven. When you fill up, the GPS data is dumped and you are handed a bill.
This means you can 1. differentiate public and non-public miles, 2. identify use of high-cost roads with special taxes, and 3. apply a peak-hour tax for rush-hour driving in congested areas.
The biggest fail in this system is the absolute refusal of proponents to admit that this system MUST record where and when your vehicle was being used 24/7. They all deny with their hands on bibles that any information like that is recorded, and claim with a straight face that law enforcement would NEVER ever ever be able to get access to that data.
How they can claim they will charge peak usage based on time and not record WHEN, and charge based on which road you were on and not record WHERE is simply amazing. I know one of the people involved in the prototyping test. She's not a moron, and she's not evil or unethical. She just doesn't understand how the data her system collects could be used. I could believe it if she was acting like it was just an interesting technical problem to solve, but she argues in favor of the system and denies the problems right along with the rest of them.
I'm not surprised the feds are picking up the idea. They are apparently morons, since this seems to be a case of "let's make mandates for better gas mileage and give handouts to people who buy electric cars -- OH NOES! we are losing gas tax money! We need a new TAX to replace the money we've been handing out hand over fist".
Point 2: the 'optional' being talked about is the bit about taking blood by force. I was rather explicit when I replied to the person who was complaining about that.
Being sober does not exempt you from the checkpoint or the search.
It isn't a search, so no, being sober doesn't exempt you from one. Nor does it exempt you from the checkpoint. It does exempt you (for the vast majority of cases) from taking a field sobriety test, and simply saying "no" exempts you from having blood drawn.
Buying food at the same time you buy the booze also exempts you from sitting at home drinking until you nearly pass out, then facing the option of getting arrested at a checkpoint or "sit at home and starve to death" that you fear.
Have you ever actually gone through one of these?
Yes.
Do you think there are two lines - one for drunks and one for sober drivers - and you get to choose which line to get in?
What does how many lines there are have to do with anything? Answer: nothing. You say hi to the cop, he sees you are sober and waves you through. You smell like a brewery or slur your speech, you get asked to "pull over there" where you get the field test. Wow. Big deal. There could be five lines for all that matters or just one. Same result.
You want to avoid the checkpoint, do so. You want to sit at home and starve because you are afraid that blood will be forcibly extracted from you? That's your choice, too. Want to wear a tinfoil hat and hope the space aliens don't come do an anal probe? Well, sorry, they're knocking at your back door, so to speak, right now.
Which is basically like saying that if you've chosen to not sit at home and starve to death,
I do so love hyperbole, it is such an easy straw man to knock down.
The other option is to simply not drink and drive and then there is no reason to "sit at home". If you are "sit at home" and drinking to the point that you fail a field sobriety test when you leave, then you certainly aren't in danger of starving to death. If you are in danger of starving to death, then you should have bought FOOD at the same time you bought the booze.
Which is effectively removing the consent from the search.
Since you can always say "no", consent has not been removed. I didn't say that there was no consequence to saying "no", but the claim that blood can be forcibly taken from someone is patently absurd. Another example of hyperbole.
He was a GREAT guy who I enjoyed having as a friend.
Then he became my boss, and demonstrated that power turns you into a dick.
More likely, he demonstrated that being a boss usually means you can't be friends, especially in a job where "being a friend" can either cost lives or requires sending friends into the line of fire.
Americans once had a right under the constitution to protection from illegal search and seizure. Now even someone who is driving in total compliance with the law is subject to being interrogated by the police and having their blood forcibly taken from them.
Since you said "Americans", with the implication that it applies to people in the US, I can feel safe in saying: bullshit.
Point 1: Sobriety checkpoints are not interrogations.
Point 2: Stops other than checkpoints require probable cause, which means you were most likely NOT driving "in total compliance" with the law. Even a broken taillight takes you out of the "total compliance" status, or wandering over the fog line.
Point 3: You NEVER have blood taken forcibly. You have the right to refuse to take a blood test. This makes it very hard for you to disprove the expert testimony of the cop who will have given you a field sobriety test before taking you to the shop where blood could be drawn, but it is still your right, and it is part of the agreement you entered when you signed up for a driver's license.
Slashdot Mirror
If we have the technology and resources (and in a first world country, we DO have the resources) in our society to cure the sick, aren't we morally obligated to do so?
Good question. Your question, however, ignores the issue of WHO PAYS for the cure.
Should our government, made up of ALL, force ALL taxpayers to pay for it, or should paying for it be a matter of personal conscience? (And should it then exempt half the population from paying because they don't 'make enough' to pay taxes? If this is a true moral imperative, then doesn't it apply to the people making less than the minimum AGI as well as those who make more? Can true moral standard truly depend on how much money you have?)
Do you allow those who disagree with you that it is a moral imperative for others to pay for the sicknesses of some the right to disagree in any significant way, or do you force them to participate in the process by using tax dollars? Is this how freedom operates?
Charities have existed for a very long time and aren't taxpayer funded, or shouldn't be anyway. St. Judes, the Red Cross, Ronald McDonald house, and a very very very large number of others, exist to provide the charity that is the basis for your "moral imperative" without needing to apply it to those who differ in their opinion. Those charities are harmed every time the government steps in to raise taxes to provide the service. People can honestly and ethically say "if my tax dollars do this, I don't need to donate...". Sadly, they lose the positive reinforcement of the act of charity, so while some gain, many more lose.
So yes, we should cure what we can, but no, I don't believe that forcing everyone to pay for it is the right solution.
But, as you said, these issues are already provided for with a passport.
No, the issue of checking other country's criminal databases are not provided for with a passport. Someone holding a UK passport, for example, entering the US, is checked in the US database, but any crimes he's committed in Greece would not show up there.
So why do we need a global repository to manage this?
Because we are becoming a global society?
And why does Country 1 need to know that I travelled to Country 2 three years ago?
I don't know that they do. They should be able to know that you were convicted of smuggling drugs into Country 2 the last time you went there, however.
Especially if my homeland is Country 3? Because that's the big difference I see in this.
What's the big difference? Did you use acetone to remove the entry stamp from the passport you apparently have no trouble with? The stamp that country 2 made in your passport with a date and time of entry, and maybe a date and time of departure? If you don't remove those stamps, then you're accepting the fact that any following countries can tell where you've been just by looking at the passport you hand them to get into their country. Well, every few years the clock resets and you get a clean passport, but you start collecting stamps again as soon as you travel with it.
And yes, I've heard of countries that are very interested in looking at the stamps in passports. Where is your difference now?
1) You're suggesting a capital punishment for a civil offense.
Uhhh, crossing the border illegally is not a civil offense, it is a criminal felony. Carrying illegal drugs while doing so is also a felony.
3) This won't stop people from trying to get into the country, it will just funnel them into even more dangerous and desperate situations,
Eliminating one avenue of illegal activity does not make someone responsible for the other illegal activities that people choose to participate in. How many times have you seen a city government sued by the family of a drug addict because the city arrested the guy's regular dealer and he had to deal with someone else and got shot while doing so? Not gonna happen.
4) Remember the Berlin Wall? Remember people being horrified at the idea of guards shooting people because they wanted a better life? How is your plan any different from what they did (beyond the superficial one of keeping people in instead of keeping them out).
You already know the difference, but you think it is "superficial". It isn't. It's the significant difference. A nation shouldn't have the right to demand that people stay in; a nation cannot survive without the right to exclude. Not even the Evil Satan US of A tries to keep people in. Every time I've travelled out of the US, there has never been a US agent checking my papers to make sure I can leave. The airline has people doing it to make sure I can get IN where I'm going and they aren't stuck flying me back to the US, but the fact I'm leaving -- don't let the door hit me in the butt on the way out is what the US says.
5) Do you have any idea how much it costs to train and equip a sniper? Do you have any idea of how many you'd need to man the entire border?
Do you have any idea how much it costs to install an alarm system? Let's just put up a sign that says "Monitored by Bracewell" with a few dummy cameras.
That works to deter crime because there is some reasonable chance that the alarm really exists. So, put up the signs defining the DMZ and then rotate the snipers from position to postition on a random basis. Fewer snipers are required.
And while it does cost a lot to train a sniper to be successful under battlefield conditions, this would be a good and productive way of honing the shooting skills without really endangering the sniper himself. It would save money in recurrent training.
There is currently NO LEGAL WAY for migrants from Mexico on south to come into the US.
That is just plain nonsense. It took less than five minutes of looking at the US State Deparment website to find more than one way for Mexican immigrants to legally enter the US. Are there limits? Of course. But to claim NO LEGAL WAY is just patently untrue.
That bears repeating: THERE IS NO LEGAL WAY for them to do what they're doing.
Say it twice, maybe it will become true? No. Sorry. Even were there no legal way to do something, that is not an excuse for them doing it illegally, or a reason not to enforce the law they know they are breaking when they do it.
There is no legal way for me to walk out of a pharmacy with oxycodone (other than getting a prescription, which makes my claim about "no legal way" patently false, but for the sake of the argument...). Should that exempt me from being arrested when I walk into a pharmacy and take what I want? Of course not.
If we were serious about immigration reform, we would at least provide these people a way to comply with the law, before getting all upset that they don't.
If there is no legal method of entry, then there is a trivial way of complying with the law: don't enter. As it stands, there are existing legal methods of entry, which they can comply with by obeying the law.
Trying to argue that there should be some legal way for someone to break the law is just stupid. I'm sorry, there is no better way of putting it.
The predictions contained in the Bible (and in the works of Nostradamus, Mother Shipton, the Koran, etc) all are so nebulous as to be applicable to virtually any time in history, rendering them utterly useless.
Not utterly. They are a statement that bad things can come to pass unless we are watchful, and this is what to watch for. I'm not particulary worried whether the prediction applies to a plan from the Barons and Earls in 16th century England to require the peasants to have the Baron's number tatooed on their forehead if they want to buy grain, or a global electronic payment system replacing all cash in the 21st.
Just another data point in the debate of who/what the beast is: Seventh Day Adventists will tell you, with a pretty reasonable argument, that the beast is or involves the Catholic Church. Word to the wise, ok?
The closest thing to an exceptions are forcable felonies and certain cases where law enforcement is authorized to use lethal force. But in both cases it's a matter of practicality and the individuals have a clear ability to avoid it.
Sounds like this would be a matter of practicality where a felony is taking place.
And here's a hint for those who don't understand how to avoid becoming a casualty of the system: DON'T GO INTO THE DMZ. Sounds like a "clear ability to avoid it" to me.
So, now that we've put this proposal smack dab into the middle of existing and acceptable procedures, what's the reason not to do it?
Clue: I'm not saying we should do it, just that your reason not to was already contradicted by your admission that there are existing situations that would allow it.
... a pretty reasonable description for someone from that time period to come up with for a system that requires migrant workers to register for an ID before they're allowed to work.
You mean like a social security number?
This article is about registering for an ID before they are allowed to cross the border, whether or not they are going to work. Sorta like the PASSPORTS we already require people to have, but with the ability to tie into an international criminal database instead of just the national one.
Why can't we live our lives in a matter of micro-transactions without everyone knowing what you are doing? I mean, do I really need a global ID to buy a loaf of bread or visit the someone (say, a doctor) and pay them in cash?
Do you typically cross a national border to buy a loaf of bread or visit your doctor? Why would you think you needed a global id used for border control and migrants if you don't cross a border, and how do you deal with the requirement for id and recordkeeping that already exist if you do?
Why would you think that an ID you use to cross the border to buy your loaf of bread would stop you from paying for it in cash, or for a doctor the same way?
If people lived their own lives to the extent that they, as an individual, can afford there would be no need for IDs to make sure you are getting your fair ration.
So live your life to the extent that you can without crossing a border and you won't need either a passport or a global id used to cross borders.
Unfortunately, you can live your life to the extent you can afford and it will not stop anyone else from doing so, so their actions make it a requirement for everyone to have an ID for certain things. I mean, a welfare office, for example, cannot simply ask every person who walks in "are you a welfare recipient" when the line of people queue up asking for their welfare money.
Why do you need to prove who you are? Honestly. What services do you benefit from that require a global ID card?
You know, if there were only some form of identification that would allow migrants and others to travel across national borders while allowing those nations the ability to identify criminals who want to enter their country ...
Wait a minute. It is called a "passport". We already have a reasonably global system in place. It appears that Interpol is looking for a system that is common enough between states that they can also check interpol records for criminal histories, as well as the individual country.
Did we miss the part about "migrants" and "border control"? If you don't want to be in someone's database, you probably don't want to travel to another country where they control their borders anyway because they'll be keeping a record of you entering, and that border is where you'd need this card.
It does require your employees to remove their tinfoil hats, however. My research department is working on a solution...
If you put the product in terms which are advantageous to the listener (usually money), then you spark their interest.
Mr. Manager, I can reduce your cost by $5000/month. My copier doesn't do 40 pages per minute, it has no disk, it has no networking capability, and it cannot sort, collate, or staple.
It is a cardboard box. Your users lay their originals on top, wait ten seconds, and then walk away with the originals.
This saves you money on paper needlessly used. It shuts down one major method of employee theft of intellectual property. It doesn't waste people's time waiting for the copier to warm up before it can copy. It saves you in both clerical (filing) time and waste management.
I'll make a fortune. And I have the patent already. Does anyone want to subscribe to my newsletter?
Then how about I go and burn a cross in front of your house, being careful to stay on public property and have a burn permit?
The "in front of your house" bit takes it out of the generic statement of opinion category and well into the hate speech regime. Do it in your own backyard where you aren't making it clear it applies to someone specific and you'd get away with it scott free, other than for basic 'when can you burn things' laws.
I have a friend who wants to try to explore the US using nothing but a compass and a sextant,
What kind of a tent?
Don't be absurd. Nothing about says you have give anything away.
Nor does anything say anything about having to do business with an Israeli company. But that hasn't stopped you.
By the way, buying something for $1/oz isn't "giving it away", it is a sale just as valid as any other. If this law really says what you pretend, they why isn't all our gold over in Israel already?
There are other sections* of the statue that I didn't post, that validate even more my original premise.
So cite them. I cannot read your mind as to what you think says what you think it says. If you can cite them, that is.
The 'examples'..."They are illustrative, not comprehensive." nuff said there
I didn't say they were comprehensive, and you know it. I said none of the example deals with not being able to say 'no' to an order from an Israeli company. For a law that you claim makes this business mandatory, you'd think there would be one example that shows it. There isn't.
Regardless of what section 10 says, ...
Yes, regardless of what the law actually says, you'll keep up the charade and try to whip up hysteria.
It will be abused just like RICO.
Right. It's been in place since what, 1977, and you see so many lawsuits about it. More FUD on your part.
It is a law for the specific benefit of one country that is not the United States,...
That very well may be, but it certainly doesn't mean you can't say 'no' when doing business with an Israeli company as you claim. I'm not debating the value or justification, just countering the ridiculous claims you made about the law.
And once again, the one section you quote HAS A CONTEXT that you are clearly ignoring. The refusal to do business MUST be based on a boycott request -- but no, it doesn't have to be a direct request. It can be one like "vessels used to carry goods must be certified to enter Bahrain docks" (as one example used). Israeli vessels, specifically, don't meet that requirement, so that's an indirect boycott request.
Another example was services provided "as specified in the laws of the destination country", which, again, is an indirect boycott request when the laws of that country include an Israeli boycott. But all it takes to get around that is to add a clause "unless US laws contravene" or words to that effect, since US law prohibits (contravenes) the boycott laws of the destination country.
But you have to read the examples to understand this.
Now, if you have a cite for a part of that law which clearly says "you can't say 'no'" to an offer of business from Israel, provide it. If it is just more of the same ignorance of the context, please stop.
The only consistent position is that all censorware is unethical and should not be sold at all.
I am a private citizen who is open-minded enough to want to share my wireless access point with those who cannot afford it. I do not want to have my bandwidth hogged by people playing videos of whatever, or visiting goatse. I have every right, and every ethical justification, to buy "censorware" to limit what the people I am giving free network connectivity to can use it for. If you don't like my free network access, don't use it.
I run a company and need to keep my people from wasting my money and their time (which I pay for) by going to porno websites, just to keep the feds off my back if nothing else. I have every ethical justification for buying "censorware" to limit what people using my network can access. I'm paying for it.
The only consistent position is that censorware is a TOOL that can be used for good or bad, but it is not inherently unethical.
Pretty slick, huh?
When you leave out the part about refusals being based on a boycott requirement, yes. The section you picked from has context, which you clearly have ignored for some reason.
If the law said what you think it does, then nothing would stop an Israeli firm from offering to buy gold bullion from a gold dealer in the US for $1/oz. He can't say no, according to you.
Further, according to you, any company that does NO overseas business would be violating this law through a pattern of refusal, but unfortunately, that simply isn't true.
What the law REALLY says is that a company in the US cannot agree to boycott restrictions as part of dealing with an overseas company. Look at all the examples they provide. I've not seen a single one that talks about orders from Israel, only from countries that are participating in the arab boycott. It certainly does not say that I must do business with anyone from Israel or go to jail.
Now, if you have a specific citation that says otherwise, please provide it. Simply ignoring the context of a sentence isn't an adequate citation.
An offer from Israel is an offer no company can refuse. It is illegal to say no. Howdya like that??
Citation required. I see no part of that law which prohibits a company in the US from saying "no" to any offer of purchase or sale from Israel. The prohibition is that the reason must not be based on a boycott requirement from an outside company.
Do you have a specific citation within 760 that supports your claim?
Exactly. I don't see how companies are going to be motivated to stop selling to these countries, or cut off existing ones.
How does one prevent someone from using software that they have purchased? Does Apple or Microsoft have that right?
The summary seems to think that all it takes is to stop sending updates, but then it tells us that ending the updates won't stop the use. The user can MANUALLY enter sites to block. Even though the database can be edited by the user, the summary calls this "frozen". An odd definition of frozen, I'd say.
Do we not imagine that someone who is applying network blocking software on a country-wide basis might have a team of people on staff who are constantly updating the "frozen" database? I would hazard to guess that the number of people updating the commercial database is fewer than what a tyrant would employ to do it for his regiem. They also probably subscribe to this guy's newletter to get the latest info on proxies. Or they will now, since this guy has bragged about his important he is in the process of freedom fighting.
Let's get a grip. Ending updates for a commercial product doesn't mean the product is suddenly useless. That is PHB thinking. In reality, ending updates often makes the product more usable because the author no longer can slip in changes to limit use. Compare this to Microsoft automatic updates which, too often, cripple the system that it is inteded to support.
This is the "gubment" we're talking about. If they don't care that the gas tax is being taxed on gas used for things other than driving on public roads,
Another fallacy. While they would prefer not to, they do reimburse non-road use when the proper forms are filled out. Farmers and pilots of aircraft that use automobile gasoline do this on a regular (yearly?) basis, I think as part of the income tax filing. Since that system is already in place and used, it is a well-known issue that the GPS system would have to cover.
Or is there some sort of gas tax rebate you can apply for that I am also unaware of?
Apparently so.
This message is to inform OSU students, faculty and staff that shots were fired this morning at an off-campus residence where multiple students reside. There were no injuries in the incident. However, we are notifying campus community members, as there have been no suspects arrested in the matter.
No mention of where this happened or what time. This was sent four hours after the event.
A previous, more timely notification of a different incident near campus (at a frat house) resulted in a flock of students descending on the area to rubberneck. I can understand why they don't publish specific location data, but "a shooter somewhere in town shooting at someone and we haven't caught him yet" isn't very helpful.
*Vehicles already have odometers, and don't all states require periodic emissions inspections? If they really wanted to tax based on actual miles traveled, they can just copy down the mileage then.
Others have covered the "every state has inspections" fallacy.
Copy down the milage. Check. Now deal with the fact that not every mile driven in a vehicle is driven on public roads subject to tax.
The most common method of recording this mileage, and that which Oregon has looked at doing, is to use GPS and record where and when you've driven. When you fill up, the GPS data is dumped and you are handed a bill.
This means you can 1. differentiate public and non-public miles, 2. identify use of high-cost roads with special taxes, and 3. apply a peak-hour tax for rush-hour driving in congested areas.
The biggest fail in this system is the absolute refusal of proponents to admit that this system MUST record where and when your vehicle was being used 24/7. They all deny with their hands on bibles that any information like that is recorded, and claim with a straight face that law enforcement would NEVER ever ever be able to get access to that data.
How they can claim they will charge peak usage based on time and not record WHEN, and charge based on which road you were on and not record WHERE is simply amazing. I know one of the people involved in the prototyping test. She's not a moron, and she's not evil or unethical. She just doesn't understand how the data her system collects could be used. I could believe it if she was acting like it was just an interesting technical problem to solve, but she argues in favor of the system and denies the problems right along with the rest of them.
I'm not surprised the feds are picking up the idea. They are apparently morons, since this seems to be a case of "let's make mandates for better gas mileage and give handouts to people who buy electric cars -- OH NOES! we are losing gas tax money! We need a new TAX to replace the money we've been handing out hand over fist".
It is not optional and it is not constitutional.
Point 1: the US Supreme Court says otherwise.
Point 2: the 'optional' being talked about is the bit about taking blood by force. I was rather explicit when I replied to the person who was complaining about that.
Being sober does not exempt you from the checkpoint or the search.
It isn't a search, so no, being sober doesn't exempt you from one. Nor does it exempt you from the checkpoint. It does exempt you (for the vast majority of cases) from taking a field sobriety test, and simply saying "no" exempts you from having blood drawn.
Buying food at the same time you buy the booze also exempts you from sitting at home drinking until you nearly pass out, then facing the option of getting arrested at a checkpoint or "sit at home and starve to death" that you fear.
Have you ever actually gone through one of these?
Yes.
Do you think there are two lines - one for drunks and one for sober drivers - and you get to choose which line to get in?
What does how many lines there are have to do with anything? Answer: nothing. You say hi to the cop, he sees you are sober and waves you through. You smell like a brewery or slur your speech, you get asked to "pull over there" where you get the field test. Wow. Big deal. There could be five lines for all that matters or just one. Same result.
You want to avoid the checkpoint, do so. You want to sit at home and starve because you are afraid that blood will be forcibly extracted from you? That's your choice, too. Want to wear a tinfoil hat and hope the space aliens don't come do an anal probe? Well, sorry, they're knocking at your back door, so to speak, right now.
Which is basically like saying that if you've chosen to not sit at home and starve to death,
I do so love hyperbole, it is such an easy straw man to knock down.
The other option is to simply not drink and drive and then there is no reason to "sit at home". If you are "sit at home" and drinking to the point that you fail a field sobriety test when you leave, then you certainly aren't in danger of starving to death. If you are in danger of starving to death, then you should have bought FOOD at the same time you bought the booze.
Which is effectively removing the consent from the search.
Since you can always say "no", consent has not been removed. I didn't say that there was no consequence to saying "no", but the claim that blood can be forcibly taken from someone is patently absurd. Another example of hyperbole.
He was a GREAT guy who I enjoyed having as a friend. Then he became my boss, and demonstrated that power turns you into a dick.
More likely, he demonstrated that being a boss usually means you can't be friends, especially in a job where "being a friend" can either cost lives or requires sending friends into the line of fire.
Americans once had a right under the constitution to protection from illegal search and seizure. Now even someone who is driving in total compliance with the law is subject to being interrogated by the police and having their blood forcibly taken from them.
Since you said "Americans", with the implication that it applies to people in the US, I can feel safe in saying: bullshit.
Point 1: Sobriety checkpoints are not interrogations.
Point 2: Stops other than checkpoints require probable cause, which means you were most likely NOT driving "in total compliance" with the law. Even a broken taillight takes you out of the "total compliance" status, or wandering over the fog line.
Point 3: You NEVER have blood taken forcibly. You have the right to refuse to take a blood test. This makes it very hard for you to disprove the expert testimony of the cop who will have given you a field sobriety test before taking you to the shop where blood could be drawn, but it is still your right, and it is part of the agreement you entered when you signed up for a driver's license.