Yes, because they are the press. But a corporation which pays for the press to run advertisements is not the press.
Please explain how the above lines up with your idea that corporate entities cannot exercise rights? You've now agreed that some, in fact, can, but only certain ones. Who decides what constitutes "legitimate" press? And if we do something like that, does that mean that, say, a BP can go out and buy an outfit like the NYT and spout all the pro-BP propaganda they want to, since they're "the press" now, too? Can the Republican party buy Fox News and run thinly veiled political advertisements disguised as news? (I really, really want to make a joke here, but, sadly, the right one just isn't springing to mind).
Lastly, does that mean if I can't afford to buy the NYT, or Fox News, I simply don't have access to the press?
How many cigarette ads do you see on TV? Have you argued that RJR's free speech rights have been violated?
FWIW, I think smoking is a horrible habit and a downright idiotic thing to do, but personally, I do NOT support the ban on advertising that is becoming more and more pervasive as time goes by (it started with TV, it's spread to other media). I think that neo-nazis, KKK, and their ilk of other races who preach the same kind of hate are the scum of the earth, but I don't support muzzling them, either--hate speech is still speech. IOW, I disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Does a corporation also get the right to vote? I have an LLC with no income, can it apply for food stamps under the "equal protection" clause?
You're reaching on this one. Please note, I am NOT advocating the "corporations are people" line. I am advocating that people acting in groups have the same rights as the individuals that compose them. You don't get an extra vote because you incorporated, you have as many votes as you have members. I'm not going to dignify the "food stamps" thing with a response.
I would say that the =writers= for the NYTimes are protected, even if the corporate entity is not.
In the above scenario, the writers can say whatever the want, but the Times can be constrained from publishing it. So we're basically back to posting handbills, because every corporate owned press is off limits to whatever the powers that be find to be objectionable content.
You quite nicely dodged the question by going off on a tangent. I'll ask it again: "Is the New York Times protected by the freedom of the press?"
If your answer to that is "no" (I won't assume this, even though your position outlined above suggests that it must be) then Congress could, tomorrow, pass a law that says, "no corporate owned media may discuss any unapproved topics. Officially approved topics will be provided by the White House press secretary on a quarterly basis" and that would pass constitutional muster.
You can't have it both ways. Either "congress shall make no law" has teeth, or it doesn't.
I agree corporations need to be subject to limits--I, too, am tired of situations where a corporate entity commits what is basically a felony, and magically, this is settled by a token fine. But limiting constitutionally protected rights is NOT how we need to go about fixing the problem.
They've ruled that blacks aren't citizens (Dred Scott), that corporations are (Citizens United), that growing a garden is Interstate Commerce (Wickard v. Filburn), and that taking private property and giving it to another private party is "public use" (Kelo).
I agree with your post almost completely, but I have to disagree with you on Citizens United. I'll admit to NOT being conversant with the actual opinion(s) in the case, but in the broad sense, I think it's absurd to say that, for example, you and I acting together do not have the same rights as we would if acting separately.
To illustrate my point, I'll ask a simple question: Is the New York Times protected by the first amendment's protection of a free press?
If corporate entities are not entitled to the same protections as individuals, then how can the answer to this question be "yes?"
You realize that those CPU's are still on the market even though they're not in production right? Then again, if you notice that it's "lifetime trends" which was rather the point.
It's at best disingenuous to argue that a manufacturer's product is "a better bang for the buck" when they're not actually selling the product you're talking about. I understand now--your point was to lie with data, after all.
Yeah...well no, you might want to look up the price/core cost vs AMD and Intel, then you'll quickly see AMD tromps all over it. And really with the Vishera cores, you're seeing a negligible loss in real world performance. The only place where Intel beats AMD in cost-per-core is with the celery(celeron) line.
You do realize that your chart is heavily skewed toward CPUs which aren't current production, right? I mean, the top 11 SKUs on that chart range in price from $11 to $22 and can only be purchased from random 3rd parties on Amazon at fire sale prices. You have to get to the 12th SKU in order to find something available at retail (from New Egg)... and it's an Intel product. #13 is also an out of production unit, while #14 is another Intel product. #15 is an honest to god current production AMD chip, though.
While I won't accuse you of lying with data (I've done quick research that appeared to support my conclusion and ended up with egg on my face, as well) the point you're trying to make (other than that Celeron beats AMD in price/performance) is totally undermined by your supporting data.
Plus backup, server licence, admins, storage.... Outlook licence. And to add insulte to injury, the licence is even more expensive than direct competitor like IBM lotus note and Novell groupwise.... and that's not considering open source alternative.
Exchange cost a lot.
Backup, admins, storage are going to be required no matter what you're running--even if you're only running postfix and courier. I'll grant the cost of the server license, but that too is fairly cheap (around $700 last I looked). Amortized it across a user base of any reasonable size, and it's at most a couple of bucks a user per year. If it's more than this, your userbase is so small that you should probably be looking at a hosted solution, anyway.
In either case, "horribly expensive" is a gross overstatement at best.
Problem is, it is Microsoft, and horribly expensive.
Exchange costs about $60-70 per user for a CAL. Even if you're constantly upgrading to the latest version of Exchange, that's a hair over $20 a year. You and I have different definitions of "horribly expensive." Compared to the cost of a full time employee, $20 is noise.
But if you simply give your stuff to someone else, you lose that protection. I pay nothing to Google for their gmail. It's on their servers.
I find that to be an indefensible position. Just because Google has my data on their servers does NOT mean that the government has the right to access that data (or at least, according to a simple reading of the 4th amendment, SHOULD not mean so). Things are different if Google decides to give my data to the government--the government didn't violate my privacy, Google did, and my remedy here is limited to suing Google for breaching my privacy in this way.
The obvious next step down the slippery slope here is Google agreeing to supply all of my data to the government (in return for some consideration) but I would argue that, at this point, they are functioning as agents of the government, and the 4th amendment again applies.
I don't believe case law backs my interpretation--but then again, case law says that growing wheat and eating it is "interstate commerce" so YMMV...
The NRA is a sportsmen's organization that advocates for the rights of hunters. Historically the NRA has been for gun control, having helped draft the ban on fully automatic weapons in the 1980's.
I will be charitable, and assume you are misinformed. Otherwise, you're either talking out of your ass, or just plain knowingly lying.
The NRA was incorporated after the end of the Civil War by former Union general officers to improve the general level of marksmanship among the population--because, as Ambrose Burnside put it, "Out of ten soldiers who are perfect in drill and the manual of arms, only one knows the purpose of the sights on his gun or can hit the broad side of a barn." It's mission is TRAINING the same and effective use of firearms. Hunting had exactly nothing to do with the purpose of the organization--though, of course, the NRA DOES support hunting, since it is one of the shooting sports.
As for your comment about the 1986 ban on machine guns, the NRA most certainly did NOT help draft that legislation. The ban was attached to legislation that the NRA DID help draft, the Firearms Owners Protection Act, which undid some of the worst parts of the Gun Control Act of 1968. After the amendment was adopted, the thinking was that the ban on machine guns, while not desirable, was worth getting the rest of the bill enacted into law.
Sounds like short term thinking to me--EMC makes some short term cash, but now their brand is associated with low end NAS devices instead (or at least in addition to) top tier back end storage? This sounds like when Cisco bought Linksys, and rebranded some of the products, with rather predictable results. What idiot wants a low end product associated with a premium brand name?
Move to suburbia. Even if the kid still doesn't make the cut for the gifted program, he'll receive a far higher quality education than he would in even the best of urban schools.
Complete bullshit. Just to pick a name that everybody knows, Bronx High School of Science is as good as, and maybe better than, any suburban schools, by any standard. There are some very good high schools in New York City, and every upscale parent knows which ones they are.
You're ignoring the fact that suburbs are expensive, and they self-select for wealthy families. That's often the reason people move to the suburbs.
Speaking as someone who went to Brooklyn Tech, I have a high respect for Bronx Science and find your description of it as "as good as, maybe better than any suburban school," to border on insulting. The specialized schools in NYC are some of the best in the country, hands down. That said, this in no way invalidates the point the GP was making--that suburban schools are, typically, of higher quality than large city schools. Brooklyn Tech, Bronx Science, and Stuyvesant are places where the entire school is in the "gifted program" and do not reflect the quality of city schools overall.
A police officer or firefighter can retire at 50 with 90% of their base pay...
And that was part of the compensation package the city agreed to pay them when they took their job. Retroactive compensation cuts are bullshit, fraud to the nth degree.
Apologies on one point, I misread part of your post, so my coming off as correcting you just looks dickish. That said, while I agree in principle that retroactive cuts are bullshit, I disagree that the cause of the problem was financial mismanagement. The real root cause is that the compensation packages were not viable from day one.
Bullshit. Some towns became insolvent because they entered into agreements to pay employees some money now and some at a later time, and then so badly mismanaged their finances -- largely through giving more and more tax breaks to the wealthy -- that they couldn't follow up on their obligation to pay people the agreed-upon compensation. Blaming unions for right-wing policies that benefit the 1% while screwing workers is ludicrous.
While on the high end for public sector employees, "Public Safety" pensions in California most certainly do not fall into your rant above. They are, frankly, obscene and are indeed a large part of why many municipalities have financial problems. A police officer or firefighter can retire at 50 with 90% of their base pay (which is usually considerable--a CHP officer earns between $68-84k per year not including overtime pay (which is $48-61 per hour). Their pension is calculated based on the 3 highest earning years.
Please note that the above numbers are BASE pay, and they can (and do) earn significantly more. See here for details. I would assume that CHP officers are probably paid more than a local sheriff's deputy, but my understanding is that many municipalities in CA are competitive with this structure.
To sum up: While the devil is in the details, it quite easy to make the statement the OP did and NOT be full of shit.
Bullshit. Whether or not you're unionized, you can thank unions for the 40 hour workweek (which is dying with the unions), weekends off, lunch breaks, coffee breaks, vacations... any working stiff who is against unions is an idiot that has fallen for the right wing's bullshit.
Because Henry Ford was a well known organizer of unions, and all...
Gotta love sense of proportion. You've got companies like Monsanto and Academi (formerly Blackwater) and a raft of multinationals polluting and doing bad stuff - but the one that causes the outrage? EA..
Bank of America vs EA:
1. Cratered the economy? ehhhh... 2. Botched launch of a time waster game? GET THE TORCHES AND PITCHFORKS!
I agree! For a 100mil we could get 2/3 of a F22. Think about it for a minute, in 10 years we could add another 6 to the 187 we already have.
Or we could, you know, borrow $100,000,000 less every year. I know that's outside the box thinking and all, but where the hell has this dichotomy come from where, when we have a spending problem, we always hear, "Well, it's better than spending $VALUE on $INITIATIVE?" Military and social spending BOTH have to come down, and revenue (somehow) has to come UP if we're to get out of the mess we're in. I'm all for basic research (as someone else up thread noted, nothing in history has paid dividends like it) but the barrel has a bottom, we have a crisis of unprecedented historical proportions, and no one in government seems to give a fuck about fixing it.
Spoken like someone who has never had to actually prep G-code, fixture a part or debug mill routing. CNC machining is a technical discipline requiring real skill and experience.\
...and once an expert builds out the program for the tool, any idiot can load it and run it.
Whether or not you're into penis jokes it's, IMO, worth making a distinction between a talking loudly at a conference and a twitter mention. IIRC, her twitter post was semi-private, being automatically visible to the intended recipient (and potentially mutual followers) but nobody else. Someone could see that she posted that, but they'd have to go looking. Not only that, but twitter is a medium for both professional and casual postings. OTOH, if you're talking loud enough to be overheard in a crowded conference hall that's far less private,
Ok, so:
Posting something on the internet, on a public feed, for the entire world to see: This is obviously private, and you should be ashamed of yourself for thinking otherwise.
Saying something quietly to the guy sitting next to you: This is obviously meant for all.
I don't disagree with anything you're saying, and I think maybe you took my comment above the wrong way? All I was responding to was the comment, "and a time machine."
3d printing changes nothing about this, you cannot get or make NFA weapons without getting a stamp
...and a time machine.
Strictly speaking, this is not true. "NFA" covers suppressors, short barreled shotguns, destructive devices, etc, and those can still be made today. Even a machine gun can still be made, though, of course, you'd have to be a SOT to possess it, and you'd have to be making it for some entity that was legal to buy one (like law enforcement), or for some other purpose allowed by law.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because they are the press. But a corporation which pays for the press to run advertisements is not the press.
Please explain how the above lines up with your idea that corporate entities cannot exercise rights? You've now agreed that some, in fact, can, but only certain ones. Who decides what constitutes "legitimate" press? And if we do something like that, does that mean that, say, a BP can go out and buy an outfit like the NYT and spout all the pro-BP propaganda they want to, since they're "the press" now, too? Can the Republican party buy Fox News and run thinly veiled political advertisements disguised as news? (I really, really want to make a joke here, but, sadly, the right one just isn't springing to mind).
Lastly, does that mean if I can't afford to buy the NYT, or Fox News, I simply don't have access to the press?
How many cigarette ads do you see on TV? Have you argued that RJR's free speech rights have been violated?
FWIW, I think smoking is a horrible habit and a downright idiotic thing to do, but personally, I do NOT support the ban on advertising that is becoming more and more pervasive as time goes by (it started with TV, it's spread to other media). I think that neo-nazis, KKK, and their ilk of other races who preach the same kind of hate are the scum of the earth, but I don't support muzzling them, either--hate speech is still speech. IOW, I disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Does a corporation also get the right to vote? I have an LLC with no income, can it apply for food stamps under the "equal protection" clause?
You're reaching on this one. Please note, I am NOT advocating the "corporations are people" line. I am advocating that people acting in groups have the same rights as the individuals that compose them. You don't get an extra vote because you incorporated, you have as many votes as you have members. I'm not going to dignify the "food stamps" thing with a response.
I would say that the =writers= for the NYTimes are protected, even if the corporate entity is not.
In the above scenario, the writers can say whatever the want, but the Times can be constrained from publishing it. So we're basically back to posting handbills, because every corporate owned press is off limits to whatever the powers that be find to be objectionable content.
You quite nicely dodged the question by going off on a tangent. I'll ask it again: "Is the New York Times protected by the freedom of the press?"
If your answer to that is "no" (I won't assume this, even though your position outlined above suggests that it must be) then Congress could, tomorrow, pass a law that says, "no corporate owned media may discuss any unapproved topics. Officially approved topics will be provided by the White House press secretary on a quarterly basis" and that would pass constitutional muster.
You can't have it both ways. Either "congress shall make no law" has teeth, or it doesn't.
I agree corporations need to be subject to limits--I, too, am tired of situations where a corporate entity commits what is basically a felony, and magically, this is settled by a token fine. But limiting constitutionally protected rights is NOT how we need to go about fixing the problem.
They've ruled that blacks aren't citizens (Dred Scott), that corporations are (Citizens United), that growing a garden is Interstate Commerce (Wickard v. Filburn), and that taking private property and giving it to another private party is "public use" (Kelo).
I agree with your post almost completely, but I have to disagree with you on Citizens United. I'll admit to NOT being conversant with the actual opinion(s) in the case, but in the broad sense, I think it's absurd to say that, for example, you and I acting together do not have the same rights as we would if acting separately.
To illustrate my point, I'll ask a simple question: Is the New York Times protected by the first amendment's protection of a free press?
If corporate entities are not entitled to the same protections as individuals, then how can the answer to this question be "yes?"
You realize that those CPU's are still on the market even though they're not in production right? Then again, if you notice that it's "lifetime trends" which was rather the point.
It's at best disingenuous to argue that a manufacturer's product is "a better bang for the buck" when they're not actually selling the product you're talking about. I understand now--your point was to lie with data, after all.
Yeah...well no, you might want to look up the price/core cost vs AMD and Intel, then you'll quickly see AMD tromps all over it. And really with the Vishera cores, you're seeing a negligible loss in real world performance. The only place where Intel beats AMD in cost-per-core is with the celery(celeron) line.
You do realize that your chart is heavily skewed toward CPUs which aren't current production, right? I mean, the top 11 SKUs on that chart range in price from $11 to $22 and can only be purchased from random 3rd parties on Amazon at fire sale prices. You have to get to the 12th SKU in order to find something available at retail (from New Egg)... and it's an Intel product. #13 is also an out of production unit, while #14 is another Intel product. #15 is an honest to god current production AMD chip, though.
While I won't accuse you of lying with data (I've done quick research that appeared to support my conclusion and ended up with egg on my face, as well) the point you're trying to make (other than that Celeron beats AMD in price/performance) is totally undermined by your supporting data.
Plus backup, server licence, admins, storage.... Outlook licence. And to add insulte to injury, the licence is even more expensive than direct competitor like IBM lotus note and Novell groupwise.... and that's not considering open source alternative.
Exchange cost a lot.
Backup, admins, storage are going to be required no matter what you're running--even if you're only running postfix and courier. I'll grant the cost of the server license, but that too is fairly cheap (around $700 last I looked). Amortized it across a user base of any reasonable size, and it's at most a couple of bucks a user per year. If it's more than this, your userbase is so small that you should probably be looking at a hosted solution, anyway.
In either case, "horribly expensive" is a gross overstatement at best.
Problem is, it is Microsoft, and horribly expensive.
Exchange costs about $60-70 per user for a CAL. Even if you're constantly upgrading to the latest version of Exchange, that's a hair over $20 a year. You and I have different definitions of "horribly expensive." Compared to the cost of a full time employee, $20 is noise.
But if you simply give your stuff to someone else, you lose that protection. I pay nothing to Google for their gmail. It's on their servers.
I find that to be an indefensible position. Just because Google has my data on their servers does NOT mean that the government has the right to access that data (or at least, according to a simple reading of the 4th amendment, SHOULD not mean so). Things are different if Google decides to give my data to the government--the government didn't violate my privacy, Google did, and my remedy here is limited to suing Google for breaching my privacy in this way.
The obvious next step down the slippery slope here is Google agreeing to supply all of my data to the government (in return for some consideration) but I would argue that, at this point, they are functioning as agents of the government, and the 4th amendment again applies.
I don't believe case law backs my interpretation--but then again, case law says that growing wheat and eating it is "interstate commerce" so YMMV...
The NRA is a sportsmen's organization that advocates for the rights of hunters. Historically the NRA has been for gun control, having helped draft the ban on fully automatic weapons in the 1980's.
I will be charitable, and assume you are misinformed. Otherwise, you're either talking out of your ass, or just plain knowingly lying.
The NRA was incorporated after the end of the Civil War by former Union general officers to improve the general level of marksmanship among the population--because, as Ambrose Burnside put it, "Out of ten soldiers who are perfect in drill and the manual of arms, only one knows the purpose of the sights on his gun or can hit the broad side of a barn." It's mission is TRAINING the same and effective use of firearms. Hunting had exactly nothing to do with the purpose of the organization--though, of course, the NRA DOES support hunting, since it is one of the shooting sports.
As for your comment about the 1986 ban on machine guns, the NRA most certainly did NOT help draft that legislation. The ban was attached to legislation that the NRA DID help draft, the Firearms Owners Protection Act, which undid some of the worst parts of the Gun Control Act of 1968. After the amendment was adopted, the thinking was that the ban on machine guns, while not desirable, was worth getting the rest of the bill enacted into law.
Sounds like short term thinking to me--EMC makes some short term cash, but now their brand is associated with low end NAS devices instead (or at least in addition to) top tier back end storage? This sounds like when Cisco bought Linksys, and rebranded some of the products, with rather predictable results. What idiot wants a low end product associated with a premium brand name?
I agree with you 100%, and am also disheartened by the lack of attention paid to the 9th and 10th amendments. I was merely being pedantic.
The constitution restricts nothing. It grants powers to the government. Anything not explicitly granted is prohibited.
"Congress shall make no law," "shall not be infringed," "excessive bail shall not be required," etc, sure sound like restrictions to me.
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium.
People called Romanes they go the house?
Move to suburbia. Even if the kid still doesn't make the cut for the gifted program, he'll receive a far higher quality education than he would in even the best of urban schools.
Complete bullshit. Just to pick a name that everybody knows, Bronx High School of Science is as good as, and maybe better than, any suburban schools, by any standard. There are some very good high schools in New York City, and every upscale parent knows which ones they are.
You're ignoring the fact that suburbs are expensive, and they self-select for wealthy families. That's often the reason people move to the suburbs.
Speaking as someone who went to Brooklyn Tech, I have a high respect for Bronx Science and find your description of it as "as good as, maybe better than any suburban school," to border on insulting. The specialized schools in NYC are some of the best in the country, hands down. That said, this in no way invalidates the point the GP was making--that suburban schools are, typically, of higher quality than large city schools. Brooklyn Tech, Bronx Science, and Stuyvesant are places where the entire school is in the "gifted program" and do not reflect the quality of city schools overall.
And that was part of the compensation package the city agreed to pay them when they took their job. Retroactive compensation cuts are bullshit, fraud to the nth degree.
Apologies on one point, I misread part of your post, so my coming off as correcting you just looks dickish. That said, while I agree in principle that retroactive cuts are bullshit, I disagree that the cause of the problem was financial mismanagement. The real root cause is that the compensation packages were not viable from day one.
Bullshit. Some towns became insolvent because they entered into agreements to pay employees some money now and some at a later time, and then so badly mismanaged their finances -- largely through giving more and more tax breaks to the wealthy -- that they couldn't follow up on their obligation to pay people the agreed-upon compensation. Blaming unions for right-wing policies that benefit the 1% while screwing workers is ludicrous.
While on the high end for public sector employees, "Public Safety" pensions in California most certainly do not fall into your rant above. They are, frankly, obscene and are indeed a large part of why many municipalities have financial problems. A police officer or firefighter can retire at 50 with 90% of their base pay (which is usually considerable--a CHP officer earns between $68-84k per year not including overtime pay (which is $48-61 per hour). Their pension is calculated based on the 3 highest earning years.
Please note that the above numbers are BASE pay, and they can (and do) earn significantly more. See here for details. I would assume that CHP officers are probably paid more than a local sheriff's deputy, but my understanding is that many municipalities in CA are competitive with this structure.
To sum up: While the devil is in the details, it quite easy to make the statement the OP did and NOT be full of shit.
Bullshit. Whether or not you're unionized, you can thank unions for the 40 hour workweek (which is dying with the unions), weekends off, lunch breaks, coffee breaks, vacations... any working stiff who is against unions is an idiot that has fallen for the right wing's bullshit.
Because Henry Ford was a well known organizer of unions, and all...
Gotta love sense of proportion. You've got companies like Monsanto and Academi (formerly Blackwater) and a raft of multinationals polluting and doing bad stuff - but the one that causes the outrage? EA..
Bank of America vs EA:
1. Cratered the economy? ehhhh...
2. Botched launch of a time waster game? GET THE TORCHES AND PITCHFORKS!
I agree! For a 100mil we could get 2/3 of a F22. Think about it for a minute, in 10 years we could add another 6 to the 187 we already have.
Or we could, you know, borrow $100,000,000 less every year. I know that's outside the box thinking and all, but where the hell has this dichotomy come from where, when we have a spending problem, we always hear, "Well, it's better than spending $VALUE on $INITIATIVE?" Military and social spending BOTH have to come down, and revenue (somehow) has to come UP if we're to get out of the mess we're in. I'm all for basic research (as someone else up thread noted, nothing in history has paid dividends like it) but the barrel has a bottom, we have a crisis of unprecedented historical proportions, and no one in government seems to give a fuck about fixing it.
Spoken like someone who has never had to actually prep G-code, fixture a part or debug mill routing. CNC machining is a technical discipline requiring real skill and experience.\
...and once an expert builds out the program for the tool, any idiot can load it and run it.
Every once in a while, I find myself looking for the 'like' button on slashdot posts. This is one of those times.
They're called "mod points." If you posted logged in, you might receive some from time to time.
Whether or not you're into penis jokes it's, IMO, worth making a distinction between a talking loudly at a conference and a twitter mention. IIRC, her twitter post was semi-private, being automatically visible to the intended recipient (and potentially mutual followers) but nobody else. Someone could see that she posted that, but they'd have to go looking. Not only that, but twitter is a medium for both professional and casual postings. OTOH, if you're talking loud enough to be overheard in a crowded conference hall that's far less private,
Ok, so:
Got it.
I don't disagree with anything you're saying, and I think maybe you took my comment above the wrong way? All I was responding to was the comment, "and a time machine."
3d printing changes nothing about this, you cannot get or make NFA weapons without getting a stamp
...and a time machine.
Strictly speaking, this is not true. "NFA" covers suppressors, short barreled shotguns, destructive devices, etc, and those can still be made today. Even a machine gun can still be made, though, of course, you'd have to be a SOT to possess it, and you'd have to be making it for some entity that was legal to buy one (like law enforcement), or for some other purpose allowed by law.