While that's true, they are starting to use some systems that work against this. In the larger multi-table tournaments, players are seated randomly. It's pretty hard to be seated at a table with anyone you know for any amount of time, as players are always moving around. I wouldn't be surprised if they start to use this for normal tables, as well. Instead of having 6 $5/10 tables, just have 1 $5/10 room where players are randomly assigned tables and moved about. Of course, this system would not work for games/stakes with low demand. You could keep track of who a player plays with, and for how long, and then analyze that and come up with possible connections. There is a risk of false positives, though, and there is really no way for the casino to prove collusion, so maybe that wouldn't be workable.
Sure, a landlord, in most situations, can ask whatever he wishes in rent. You may take it or leave it. The law does not give a hoot about rental prices.
No rent control in your area, then? Around here, landlords can only raise rent something like once every other year (if no change of tenant). A raise in rent can only be a certain percentage of the current rent unless the landlord has a good reason to raise it more (renovation/reconstruction, change in surrounding rents and property values, etc.)
PANYNJ runs 4 airports in the NYC area (LaGuardia, JFK, Newark, and Teterboro, a smaller airport near Giants stadium that execs. and sports teams use), and their associated monorail/light rail systems. They run the Hudson crossings (GWB, Lincoln, Holland, to/from NYC; Bayonne, Outerbridge and Goethals to/from Staten Island). They also run the PATH (Port Authority Trans Hudson) subway between Newark, Hoboken, Jersey City, and NYC. Finally, they run Port Newark, Port Elizabeth, Howland Hook terminal on Staten Island, Red Hook terminal in Brooklyn, and a few other smaller ports and cargo facilities. PA owns the WTC site, but leased the site a few years before 9/11 to Allan Silverstein for 99 years.
Well, how long did it take before it was required to have electricity or a phone to do those things? Right, it doesn't, and it won't, because government must give access to everyone. Yes, electricity and phone and computers make all these things easier, but they are never required, and without a dramatic shift in the way government in the USA thinks and works, it will not happen in the next 20-30 years, at least.
Can't we forge an address anyway? NY Times thinks I'm from Anchorage, Alaska
NY Times isn't the government. It is a federal crime to lie on a federal form. I'm sure there are similar state laws, but I don't think this would quite count as an official form. However, it may fall under wire fraud statutes, depending on where you live (NY times forgery may also fall under these statutes).
I'm confused. If he "never uses it" and "just checked", you're implying he paid $19.99 just to look at the image layout. On my free yahoo account, there are a few gifs (~1k, 25x25) on the left hand side, and an ad banner across the top. The current banner happens to be flash, so I can't get much info about it without exerting effort.
ICQ always allowed mass messaging and it was never a problem for me. In fact it was quite useful for making little announcements, though that may be because I don't keep an email address book. I did keep my contact list fairly small and only allowed users on my list to contact me, so there was little potential for abuse.
6 to 7 has been debunked recently. The newest studies put it at 3-4. The reason 6-7 was thought to be the 'magic number' is because the audio processing portion of the brain can recall enough of the sound to get to 6-7 digits or characters. That's why repeating something once or twice after hearing it can make it easier to remember, and it's also why advertisments will repeat the phone number, website, or tagline twice in quick succession at the end of a commercial.
What highways did you travel on here? On most interstates, there are at least 1 mile and 1/2 mile signs. For highway intersections there are frequently signs 2-5 miles away. It is true that on some denser city highways, and smaller state roads, you may only get 1/4 mile or less notice.
It's actually a much larger job than that. Highway signs are large structures and cannot just be placed anywhere by a few people. Your guy with a wrench might be able to loosen some nuts on a sign, but without a crane, it's going to go crashing down to the roadway below.
Signs are put wherever they will fit and be seen. The distances are all rough, that is why you end up with some "1/2 mile to exit" signs being more towards 3/4 mile away, and some being more towards 1/4 mile. If you are travelling on a highway with many overpasses, almost none of the signs will line up, because they will frequently opt to use the bridges as supports for the signs, and the bridges are not spaced out in nice 1/4, 1/2, and 1 mile increments from the exits.
Windows way: I highlight and hit CTRL+C to copy, so fluid as to practically be one action. I pop open Moz, wipe out the URL of my home page, and paste it in.
How about you use a real client, or properly configure the one you have. Then, click on the link, and your browser opens right to the page.
You say this with a winky face as if the poster should have easily known it. However, it is not intuitive at all to think about pasting the URL to what is essentially 'nowhere'. We generally think about pasting text to an area that accepts text input. The main screen of a browser, unless you are at an HTML form, does not accept text input (Yes, I know about type ahead find, etc. That is also not very intuitive when you think about it).
Even if there are 50-55% taxes taken out, FOX is still paying that money. The voice actors are then paying it to the government. Also, I believe the tax rate works out to somewhere around 33%. It's a little wacky because you pay 10% on the first 10k or so, then ~15% up to 30k or so, etc. The top tax rate was 35% for 2004. That was for income above $319,000 a year. Note that under President Clinton, this tax rate was 38.5%, over $288k. For the purposes of this post, I used the Single brackets. When it comes to medicaid, SS, etc., over ~$88k or so of income, and your SS/MC taxes are capped. That cap is around $5,500 for SS. I couldn't quickly find a good source for the Medicare, but it slightly higher than social security.Source 1Source 2Source 3.
Your windows installation is already obviously broken, so you have nothing to lose by either reinstalling windows, or choosing to install linux at this time. Why you are content to use a broken system, I do not know.
And at the end of the day what would your argument be, that the 9th reserves all rights to the individual not enumerated? How would you define those rights?
They would be defined as necessary upon breech of them by the government, as has been the case in the past with the 9th Amendment.
Maybe on a principle level, but it really seems pointless to me.
I think this is where we really differ. I guess my thinking is that I don't want to put aside the 9th just because of the way it has been ruled on in the past, or because many 9th claims can also be achieved through other means. While I understand that not using it does not mean it will expire or go bad, I think the spirit of the 9th amendment is very important, and not realized by many in today's society. This is more the fault of our education system than anything else, though.
We've gone round and round here, but I just have one final point, I think.
I think my tone was in response to the invocation of fundamental rights that the post I responded to used when quoting the interviewer building his own HDTV. Not every right out there can be asserted as a fundamental right.
Quite reasonable. However, my post was based, as you know, simply upon the text of the 9th amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I did not invoke a claim to a fundamental right, merely a right. While the USSC has determined that the 9th amendment was meant to apply to fundamental rights, that does not mean I have to agree:)
Also it's interesting to note that two of those cases you refer to are still good law.
And will be forever, I imagine. They are both cases which were about singular events in history and are unlikely to ever be overturned due to their unique nature. Interesting to note that while the Government has acknowledged it was wrong to intern Japanese Americans, and I believe paid reparations to those affected, the laws that allowed them to do so still stand. I suppose this issue is coming up again with Padilla, although they are slightly different cases.
So like it or not, you have to deal with the way the Constitution is interpreted today, not just what is says.
In the far past, the Constitution was interpreted to allow the denial of rights to certain groups of people. In the more recent past, this interpretation has changed. Would you have told Blacks prior to 1863 that they had to 'deal with' the way the Constitution was interpreted then?
Yes, I realize some of these changes came about through the 14th Amendment, but that relates more to Constitutional rights vis-a-vis the states. Prior to the 14th Amendment, the Constitution could have been construed to allow all of the freedoms it allowed to white males to everyone else, however, that was not the case.
My objection here is to the argument of "Deal with it." That's a truly disgusting argument, and I hope you don't plan on using it in your future career as a lawyer. If you happen to agree with the historical interpretation of the 9th, that's fine, but present arguments to that effect, not to the effect of 'well that's how it is, like it or lump it!' This country was founded on completely opposite ideals to 'deal with it'.
I don't like it, but I don't have to just deal with it. That's where our thinking differs. There are both legal channels (voting, activism, etc.) and illegal channels (civil disobedience, and if necessary, rebellion) available to the citizens to alter the government if they disagree with something.
I'm not arguing that the USSC would agree with the idea that building your own TV is a fundamental right. Hell, I'm not even really saying that myself.
My post and anger came from your GP post basically saying 'It ain't in the Constitution, so it ain't a right.' That is wholly false, and is exactly the kind of thinking the 9th amendment was meant to destroy. I realize you couched your statement to include the current interpretations of the 9th amendment (that is, that it applies to fundamental rights) but I disagree with the tone, and the idea that every possible case has been borne out against the 9th amendment ("they have been pretty much enumerated by the Constitution and cases that interpret it."). I'm simply not willing to let the 9th amendment wither because some people feel that it's all been argued already. That is just contrary to the point of the 9th amendment. Also, we must not be too ready to rely upon precedent above the Constitution. Obviously, historical interpretation of the text is something that should be strongly considered, but it should not be the end-all of Constitutional Law. Remember that the USSC has sanctioned horrible acts in the past (Korematsu, Plessy, Bush..). They are not above reproach.
I agree, and it's quite sad to see someone deny themselves a right due to their ignorance of the Constitution. That's exactly what the people with power want, and over the past 50-100 years (depending on your PoV), that's exactly what's been happening.
but they have been pretty much enumerated by the Constitution and cases that interpret it. There's no inalienable right to building your own TV in there,
The internet is threatening to destroy the viability of creating entertainment because people like you seem to think that just because it's easy to do something that it should be legal too.
No. Most people in this thread are saying it should be legal due to the way copyright law and international trade is setup. If these songs are legally obtained and distributed under Russian law, then no law is broken if they are imported into the USA or other countries. It doesn't matter if that's done over the Internet, or if I walk to Russia during the next ice age.
Word. I'm also pissed off at the FDA for preventing the free flow of untested drugs, and the FBI for restricting the free flow of raw, uncut heroin. And I'm not a big fan of the "State Police" slowing down the free flow of my neighbour's high deifnition TV into my basement.
You appear to be sarcastic here, but many people consider these legitimate beefs with the government (although I don't quite understand what the last one is supposed to be.. your neighbors TV turned up too loud?). The idea that the government can regulate what we put in our bodies is appalling to many, including myself.
Your cops from the street example, a reasonable assumption is that unless the cops had significant evidence to do so, they wouldn't waste the resources to monitor *you*.
Naieve and wrong, imo. It may be different in Canada, but in the US, almost all police statistics are based on the number of arrests. This leads police officers to over-arrest, over-investigate, and, whenever possible, overstep the legal boundaries to get that arrest. For the police officer, it's almost laughingly simple. First, they stop you. This could be a traffic stop, or you could just be walking on the street. If you give them any reason to investigate further, which can be just about anything, too nervous, not nervous enough, too black for this part of town, too white for this part of town, anything.. they'll use it. The worst thing that happens to the officer is that he doesn't arrest you, so there is absolutely no reason for the officer to not harrass you. It is his or her job to go out and make arrests. Let me be clear and state that again: It is the job of the police in many American cities and towns to make arrests. Preventing and prosecuting crime is just a by-product of this.
To get back to the point, if the police have a tool they can use to almost effortlessly increase the number of arrests, they will use it. On everybody.
Slashdot Mirror
While that's true, they are starting to use some systems that work against this. In the larger multi-table tournaments, players are seated randomly. It's pretty hard to be seated at a table with anyone you know for any amount of time, as players are always moving around. I wouldn't be surprised if they start to use this for normal tables, as well. Instead of having 6 $5/10 tables, just have 1 $5/10 room where players are randomly assigned tables and moved about. Of course, this system would not work for games/stakes with low demand. You could keep track of who a player plays with, and for how long, and then analyze that and come up with possible connections. There is a risk of false positives, though, and there is really no way for the casino to prove collusion, so maybe that wouldn't be workable.
Sure, a landlord, in most situations, can ask whatever he wishes in rent. You may take it or leave it. The law does not give a hoot about rental prices.
No rent control in your area, then? Around here, landlords can only raise rent something like once every other year (if no change of tenant). A raise in rent can only be a certain percentage of the current rent unless the landlord has a good reason to raise it more (renovation/reconstruction, change in surrounding rents and property values, etc.)
PANYNJ runs 4 airports in the NYC area (LaGuardia, JFK, Newark, and Teterboro, a smaller airport near Giants stadium that execs. and sports teams use), and their associated monorail/light rail systems. They run the Hudson crossings (GWB, Lincoln, Holland, to/from NYC; Bayonne, Outerbridge and Goethals to/from Staten Island). They also run the PATH (Port Authority Trans Hudson) subway between Newark, Hoboken, Jersey City, and NYC. Finally, they run Port Newark, Port Elizabeth, Howland Hook terminal on Staten Island, Red Hook terminal in Brooklyn, and a few other smaller ports and cargo facilities. PA owns the WTC site, but leased the site a few years before 9/11 to Allan Silverstein for 99 years.
Well, how long did it take before it was required to have electricity or a phone to do those things? Right, it doesn't, and it won't, because government must give access to everyone. Yes, electricity and phone and computers make all these things easier, but they are never required, and without a dramatic shift in the way government in the USA thinks and works, it will not happen in the next 20-30 years, at least.
Can't we forge an address anyway? NY Times thinks I'm from Anchorage, Alaska
NY Times isn't the government. It is a federal crime to lie on a federal form. I'm sure there are similar state laws, but I don't think this would quite count as an official form. However, it may fall under wire fraud statutes, depending on where you live (NY times forgery may also fall under these statutes).
I'm confused. If he "never uses it" and "just checked", you're implying he paid $19.99 just to look at the image layout. On my free yahoo account, there are a few gifs (~1k, 25x25) on the left hand side, and an ad banner across the top. The current banner happens to be flash, so I can't get much info about it without exerting effort.
ICQ always allowed mass messaging and it was never a problem for me. In fact it was quite useful for making little announcements, though that may be because I don't keep an email address book. I did keep my contact list fairly small and only allowed users on my list to contact me, so there was little potential for abuse.
6 to 7 has been debunked recently. The newest studies put it at 3-4. The reason 6-7 was thought to be the 'magic number' is because the audio processing portion of the brain can recall enough of the sound to get to 6-7 digits or characters. That's why repeating something once or twice after hearing it can make it easier to remember, and it's also why advertisments will repeat the phone number, website, or tagline twice in quick succession at the end of a commercial.
What highways did you travel on here? On most interstates, there are at least 1 mile and 1/2 mile signs. For highway intersections there are frequently signs 2-5 miles away. It is true that on some denser city highways, and smaller state roads, you may only get 1/4 mile or less notice.
It's actually a much larger job than that. Highway signs are large structures and cannot just be placed anywhere by a few people. Your guy with a wrench might be able to loosen some nuts on a sign, but without a crane, it's going to go crashing down to the roadway below.
Signs are put wherever they will fit and be seen. The distances are all rough, that is why you end up with some "1/2 mile to exit" signs being more towards 3/4 mile away, and some being more towards 1/4 mile. If you are travelling on a highway with many overpasses, almost none of the signs will line up, because they will frequently opt to use the bridges as supports for the signs, and the bridges are not spaced out in nice 1/4, 1/2, and 1 mile increments from the exits.
Windows way: I highlight and hit CTRL+C to copy, so fluid as to practically be one action. I pop open Moz, wipe out the URL of my home page, and paste it in.
How about you use a real client, or properly configure the one you have. Then, click on the link, and your browser opens right to the page.
You say this with a winky face as if the poster should have easily known it. However, it is not intuitive at all to think about pasting the URL to what is essentially 'nowhere'. We generally think about pasting text to an area that accepts text input. The main screen of a browser, unless you are at an HTML form, does not accept text input (Yes, I know about type ahead find, etc. That is also not very intuitive when you think about it).
we have 2 people... 2!
Ponderous.. fuckin' ponderous!
Even if there are 50-55% taxes taken out, FOX is still paying that money. The voice actors are then paying it to the government. Also, I believe the tax rate works out to somewhere around 33%. It's a little wacky because you pay 10% on the first 10k or so, then ~15% up to 30k or so, etc. The top tax rate was 35% for 2004. That was for income above $319,000 a year. Note that under President Clinton, this tax rate was 38.5%, over $288k. For the purposes of this post, I used the Single brackets. When it comes to medicaid, SS, etc., over ~$88k or so of income, and your SS/MC taxes are capped. That cap is around $5,500 for SS. I couldn't quickly find a good source for the Medicare, but it slightly higher than social security.Source 1 Source 2 Source 3.
Your windows installation is already obviously broken, so you have nothing to lose by either reinstalling windows, or choosing to install linux at this time. Why you are content to use a broken system, I do not know.
And at the end of the day what would your argument be, that the 9th reserves all rights to the individual not enumerated? How would you define those rights?
They would be defined as necessary upon breech of them by the government, as has been the case in the past with the 9th Amendment.
Maybe on a principle level, but it really seems pointless to me.
I think this is where we really differ. I guess my thinking is that I don't want to put aside the 9th just because of the way it has been ruled on in the past, or because many 9th claims can also be achieved through other means. While I understand that not using it does not mean it will expire or go bad, I think the spirit of the 9th amendment is very important, and not realized by many in today's society. This is more the fault of our education system than anything else, though.
We've gone round and round here, but I just have one final point, I think.
:)
I think my tone was in response to the invocation of fundamental rights that the post I responded to used when quoting the interviewer building his own HDTV. Not every right out there can be asserted as a fundamental right.
Quite reasonable. However, my post was based, as you know, simply upon the text of the 9th amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." I did not invoke a claim to a fundamental right, merely a right. While the USSC has determined that the 9th amendment was meant to apply to fundamental rights, that does not mean I have to agree
Also it's interesting to note that two of those cases you refer to are still good law.
And will be forever, I imagine. They are both cases which were about singular events in history and are unlikely to ever be overturned due to their unique nature. Interesting to note that while the Government has acknowledged it was wrong to intern Japanese Americans, and I believe paid reparations to those affected, the laws that allowed them to do so still stand. I suppose this issue is coming up again with Padilla, although they are slightly different cases.
So like it or not, you have to deal with the way the Constitution is interpreted today, not just what is says.
In the far past, the Constitution was interpreted to allow the denial of rights to certain groups of people. In the more recent past, this interpretation has changed. Would you have told Blacks prior to 1863 that they had to 'deal with' the way the Constitution was interpreted then?
Yes, I realize some of these changes came about through the 14th Amendment, but that relates more to Constitutional rights vis-a-vis the states. Prior to the 14th Amendment, the Constitution could have been construed to allow all of the freedoms it allowed to white males to everyone else, however, that was not the case.
My objection here is to the argument of "Deal with it." That's a truly disgusting argument, and I hope you don't plan on using it in your future career as a lawyer. If you happen to agree with the historical interpretation of the 9th, that's fine, but present arguments to that effect, not to the effect of 'well that's how it is, like it or lump it!' This country was founded on completely opposite ideals to 'deal with it'.
I don't like it, but I don't have to just deal with it. That's where our thinking differs. There are both legal channels (voting, activism, etc.) and illegal channels (civil disobedience, and if necessary, rebellion) available to the citizens to alter the government if they disagree with something.
I'm not arguing that the USSC would agree with the idea that building your own TV is a fundamental right. Hell, I'm not even really saying that myself.
My post and anger came from your GP post basically saying 'It ain't in the Constitution, so it ain't a right.' That is wholly false, and is exactly the kind of thinking the 9th amendment was meant to destroy. I realize you couched your statement to include the current interpretations of the 9th amendment (that is, that it applies to fundamental rights) but I disagree with the tone, and the idea that every possible case has been borne out against the 9th amendment ("they have been pretty much enumerated by the Constitution and cases that interpret it."). I'm simply not willing to let the 9th amendment wither because some people feel that it's all been argued already. That is just contrary to the point of the 9th amendment. Also, we must not be too ready to rely upon precedent above the Constitution. Obviously, historical interpretation of the text is something that should be strongly considered, but it should not be the end-all of Constitutional Law. Remember that the USSC has sanctioned horrible acts in the past (Korematsu, Plessy, Bush..). They are not above reproach.
I agree, and it's quite sad to see someone deny themselves a right due to their ignorance of the Constitution. That's exactly what the people with power want, and over the past 50-100 years (depending on your PoV), that's exactly what's been happening.
but they have been pretty much enumerated by the Constitution and cases that interpret it. There's no inalienable right to building your own TV in there,
WRONG WRONG WRONG. READ THE 9TH AMENDMENT PLEASE.
You're not looking at the argument correctly.
The internet is threatening to destroy the viability of creating entertainment because people like you seem to think that just because it's easy to do something that it should be legal too.
No. Most people in this thread are saying it should be legal due to the way copyright law and international trade is setup. If these songs are legally obtained and distributed under Russian law, then no law is broken if they are imported into the USA or other countries. It doesn't matter if that's done over the Internet, or if I walk to Russia during the next ice age.
Word. I'm also pissed off at the FDA for preventing the free flow of untested drugs, and the FBI for restricting the free flow of raw, uncut heroin. And I'm not a big fan of the "State Police" slowing down the free flow of my neighbour's high deifnition TV into my basement.
You appear to be sarcastic here, but many people consider these legitimate beefs with the government (although I don't quite understand what the last one is supposed to be.. your neighbors TV turned up too loud?). The idea that the government can regulate what we put in our bodies is appalling to many, including myself.
Amazing? You know, we live in a society here.. there are rules..
Your cops from the street example, a reasonable assumption is that unless the cops had significant evidence to do so, they wouldn't waste the resources to monitor *you*.
Naieve and wrong, imo. It may be different in Canada, but in the US, almost all police statistics are based on the number of arrests. This leads police officers to over-arrest, over-investigate, and, whenever possible, overstep the legal boundaries to get that arrest. For the police officer, it's almost laughingly simple. First, they stop you. This could be a traffic stop, or you could just be walking on the street. If you give them any reason to investigate further, which can be just about anything, too nervous, not nervous enough, too black for this part of town, too white for this part of town, anything.. they'll use it. The worst thing that happens to the officer is that he doesn't arrest you, so there is absolutely no reason for the officer to not harrass you. It is his or her job to go out and make arrests. Let me be clear and state that again: It is the job of the police in many American cities and towns to make arrests. Preventing and prosecuting crime is just a by-product of this.
To get back to the point, if the police have a tool they can use to almost effortlessly increase the number of arrests, they will use it. On everybody.