Encrypt it to where? Encryption requires the endpoint be the other side of the conversation
And if the endpoint is somebody running a bittorrent client and seeding pirated material, then one would think that it would be in their best interest to enable encryption. If AT&T actually starts this, how long until encryption becomes the rule rather then the exception on torrents, and how long until there is a standard to encrypt everything in the protocol?
This is an arms race and I'm not going to bet against the networking geeks with nothing better to do then pirate content.
Chances are the competitive ISPs traffic goes through an AT&T controlled network at some point in time.
The last time I looked, AT&T is but one of nine Tier 1 carriers, and unless you are communicating with somebody on an ISP that exclusively obtains it's connectivity from AT&T, then what reason would your packets have to travel over an AT&T network? Granted, that's a huge chunk of the internet, but there's an even bigger chunk (in the US alone, never mind the rest of the World) that receives data transit from other providers that have nothing to do with AT&T.
This is a distressing trend and I'm worried about it... but I'm not going to panic until Level 3, Verizon, Global Crossing, ATDN, etc, etc jump on the bandwagon. And when that happens I'll be waiting for an end-to-end encrypted bittorrent-like protocol. How is AT&T going to tell the difference between that and a VPN to the office? And even if they can, how will they know whether it's a pirated movie, porn or (to use the/. favorite) a Linux ISO?
A lot of the old timers still look the other way. A lot of the young ones have better things to do and will look the other way -- unless they arrest you for something else, in which case the pot charges will be tacked on.
you can't get a low paying job without being tested for (some) drugs
I've never worked anywhere that did random drug testing. Most of them do the initial test, but after that, who cares? I can stop smoking weed for a few weeks if I switch jobs.
For some reason I can't fathom, it took a Constitutional Amendment to legalize the prohibition of alcohol, but other drugs needed no such amendment.
That's because SCOTUS decided that Congress has the power to regulate drugs under the oft-abused interstate commerce clause. Explain to me how growing pot for my personal consumption is "interstate commerce"
The entire corporate-run US government is anti(some)drug.
Unless that drug has a patent and a powerful lobby behind it. Then they fall all over themselves denying the states the power to import cheaper drugs from Canada or denying Medicare the power to buy drugs in bulk and negotiate lower prices. *sigh*
is against a harmless plant that I used to greatly enjoy daily but can no longer afford
You can't afford it? Where do you live? Price has never been an issue for anybody I know that smokes weed... Granted, it would cost next to nothing if it was legalized, but still, current prices are hardly a deterrent to buying it. The biggest deterrent for me is the fear of buying something laced with other drugs or containments -- which is why it should be legal in the first place!
So yeah, drug prohibition is a bitch, but weed is still readily accessible and fairly cheap compared to the alternatives. I know that I get a lot more out of an eighth ($35-$50 depending on quality and other factors) then I would if I had spent that money on booze. And I'm lucky enough to live in New York, so getting caught ($100 fine) isn't a huge deterrent either... My last speeding ticket cost me more then a pot bust would.
And I'm sure that several dozen poor people were tasered on the same day, for doing the same thing (struggling with the police), and not a single on of them gets front page Slashdot.
And that's a good thing? The problem that a lot of human rights organizations have with "less then lethal" weapons is that they lower the standard for when force can be applied. Whether or not he deserved to be removed from the room is a subject I'm not going to dwell on. But four officers couldn't remove one college student without using a taser? Give me a fucking break! How did they manage police work before they had tasers?
The reason they don't publish the actual limit is that they are smart and they understand game theory. If they publish a limit, abusive users will carefully monitor bandwidth and go right up to the limit, and then switch accounts. It's standard practice not to publish exact limits when you don't want to be "gamed". You can hate Comcast, that's fine, but give credit where credit is due. They are smart a-holes.
So, following your theory, T-Mobile and Verizon can stop telling people exactly how many peak minutes they are getting with their plan, because "abusive users" will carefully monitor their usage and go right up to the limit and then stop using it for the month, thus denying them the overage? They should just sell it as "unlimited" and cut people off who in their minds talk on the phone too much, right?
You say "abusive users", I say "maximizing the value of the service that I'm paying for".
I must not be communicating this idea clearly enough: Crews don't necessarily know whether they're doing a live mission or a practice mission. That's need-to-know information, and the flight crew doesn't need to know.
The flight crew doesn't have a "need-to-know" whether or not the mission is real or a drill? Give me a fucking break! You've been watching too many movies.
I'm going with the other guy who replied to all of your messages. What makes you an authority on this subject? One of my friends was a nuke troop (MOS code: 2w231) at Whiteman Airforce Base and while she touts the standard line of "I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of nuclear weapons at...." line, she'd be the first to admit that even the ground crews are damn well aware of what they are handling. Ditto for the pilots.
We do it everyday. Normally over the oceans, but we still do it. At any one time, they are on their way to whoever we consider the enemy. The pilots never know when they are carrying live or not.
Nice fear mongering but it's completely inaccurate. For starters the pilots would know what they are carrying and the days of 24/7 airborne nukes ended back in the 60s or 70s. It was too expensive, with too much room for error and quite redundant when we have a force of boomers that can't be detected/engaged/destroyed before launching.
Find weapons grade material scattered around centrifuge sites
Of course that weapons grade material would be traced back to the reactor in the United States that made it in the first place, thus rendering your conspiracy theory moot. Any halfway advanced nuclear power (think, the US, Russia, UK, France, Israel, etc) can tell from the isotopes of the material where and when it was produced.
The 4th Amendment right is granted by the government. That's who has to follow the Constitution. If the store is in the habit of checking receipts at the door then you have agreed to show it by shopping in the store.
I'm sorry, but your dead wrong. And it has nothing to do with the 4th Amendment. The bottom line is that if I refuse to let them check my bags they can't compel me to do so. Name a way for them to compel me to submit to a bag check that isn't breaking the law. They can't legally detain me or use force on me. It's unlawful arrest at best -- unlawful imprisonment (typically a felony) at worst.
Even if you agreed in writing to submit to a bag check and later refuse to do so they still can't force you to submit to it. The most they could do at that point is sue you for breach of contract and banish you from the store.
The guy may not needed to show ID, but he did have to identify himself and answer any question the officer had truthfully
Actually, the last time I checked, you aren't required to answer any question the police ask you, besides your name (and address?).
"As a matter of policy I do not talk to the police without my attorney present. Here's his card." At that point the police officer damn well better stop asking you questions. His choices are to arrest you or let you go.
An example is this from "Teach For America's" website Criminal records/proceedings Teach For America reserves the right to deny admission to or dismiss any corps member who has been involved in a criminal proceeding other than a minor traffic violation, regardless of the outcome.
It will also limit (read make impossible) a persons ability to work as a social worker, ability to foster children, and make it much harder to adopt. If this person is ever involved in a CPS investigation, he will be assumed to be a "high risk" individual, greatly increasing the likely hood of having his children detained by the state. There are plenty of "non-punishments" packed into the system.
In New York State, all records related to the arrest are sealed and/or destroyed (including your fingerprints) if the case is resolved with a not guilty verdict or the charges are dropped. I've seen the court orders related to this and the only exception they allow for the release of records is for a pistol permit.
You may take the consideration and , in doing so, implicitly agree to the terms of the agreement.
Your logic is flawed. Ignore the parent saying that you have to have consideration to enter into a contract. Let's say that you are correct and you have a contract with them and part of that contract says they get to check your bags.
When you refuse to submit to the bag check you are now in violation of your contract. That still does not give them the right to detain you. If I sign a contract with you and refuse to honor it do you gain arrest powers over me? No, you don't. The only thing you could do is sue me for whatever damages you incurred as a result of the contract being broken.
But if I was faced with faced with some asshat who was willing to run out into the parking lot and throw himself in front of my car, would I stick to my guns and call the police for their unlawful detainment
I would start driving away slowly and see just how far he's willing to take his little game. I suspect once your car starts moving they'd get out of your way. But I'm an asshole like that.
A lot of stores in my area have clear signs stating that consenting to a bag search is a condition of entry.
Repeat after me: That does not make it legal.
I'd agree that a better way of handling this would be to refuse to shop at those stores in the first place (why give them your money), but just because they put up that sign doesn't make it legal for them to detain you and force you to submit to that bag search.
If I put a sign on my front door that says "All female guests agree to have sex with me before leaving", and a female comes into my house anyway, does that mean I can use force to compel her to obey my "policy"? I kinda doubt it...
I think the poster may have meant Sam's Club, which is owned by Wal-Mart, and does check receipts on the way out.
Sam's only checks receipts to mark them so you can't take them back into the store and get the same stuff without paying for it. In my experience they don't actually bother to look in your cart and compare it to the receipt. I've walked out of Sams with a shopping cart full of stuff that I paid for, but wasn't on my receipt (checked out under two different charge accounts, so two different receipts) and they only marked the one receipt that I presented. Didn't even comment on the fact that I had WAY more stuff in my cart then was on that one receipt.
If they said on the entryway "You will be search upon leaving" it would be legal. Saying it after they've already accepted your offer (of a sale) is bait and switch.
No, it really wouldn't be legal. If I put a sign on my front door that says "All female guests agree to have sex with me before they leave" could I then detain somebody that tried to leave without obeying my "policy"?
Just because they put up a sign or make you sign something that doesn't mean it's legal or enforceable. Stop being a sheep and stand up for your rights.
Umm... 'sadly' ? Just out of curiosity, in your worldview, when civil rights have already decayed to the point that things like TFA described are happening, what alternative mechanisms (other than suing the government for cash) do you think would work to compel local governments to get back on the straight and narrow? Stern reprimands, with no follow-through?
I think he was lamenting the fact that it's going to cost the tax-payers money because of the officers mistake. It should cost the town money because that's the only way they will get the point -- but it still sucks.
How about this as a suitable compromise. At stores that use LCD customer-operated credit card readers, have the reader display a message to the tune of, "By signing you give Circuit City permission to inspect this receipt as you exit the store. If you do not wish to give said permission, please notify your cashier and he or she will kindly restock your merchandise and cancel the purchase."
That still doesn't mean that the bag check person can force you to let them check. By signing that you may have entered into a contract -- but a private party has no power to enforce a contract. The most they could do is sue you for breach of contract if you refused to allow your bags to be inspected.
Think about it. If you sign a promissory note and borrow money from me and refuse to pay it back what are my options? I can't detain you. I can't use physical force to make you honor the contract you signed. All I can do is sue you and hope that the court offers me relief.
Remember, that bag is yours as soon as you pay for it, and the store loses all rights in the matter, unless you sign it away (CostCo.)
You can't sign away your rights to a private individual or company. The most CostCo or Sams can do if you refuse to let them see something you paid for is terminate your membership and refuse to let you back. MAYBE they could sue you for breach of contract. But they can't use physical force to compel you to honor that contract. You don't check your constitutional rights at the door when you join one of those clubs.
I'm a happy pirate, what with my 100GB/month average. Not afraid in the least, everyone does it. Just like smoking pot. Who do I harm exactly? Pray tell.
The sad thing is that if I'm caught with some pot in the wrong state (not mine, thank god, decriminalized), or if I'm caught uploading a movie, I'm likely to be punished more severely then a child molester.
Don't know if they were all State Troopers, or some "local" but some of them definitely were state troopers
Well, when I got pulled over by a State Trooper, he asked if I knew how fast I was going. Told him I did and by how much. He quoted my words and put them on the supporting deposition to be used against me. The son of a bitch also wrote me a seat belt ticket because my lap belt wasn't buckled. It was a car with automatic shoulder belts and manual lap belts. I had unbuckled the lap belt to get my wallet when I was pulled over. He didn't believe that and wrote the ticket anyway.
That's the extent of my interaction with the State Cops. But every single friend of mine that has likewise been pulled over received the ticket. I don't know where you live in New York but the Troopers in Troop C are assholes and will not cut you a break. Talking to them will not save you. Best to keep your mouth shut.
One other thing I'd like to add, is that in all the times I've been to traffic court, there is never a DA present. Just you (and a room full of other ticketed persons), the judge, and the cop (if they bother to show up
Umm, then you either don't live in New York State or you live in the city (DMV handles tickets down there in an administrative fashion without "court"). Every single time I've been ticketed I dealt with the DAs office in whatever county (typically Broome, that's where I live) to get it fixed. The only time I ever went to court was for the aforementioned speeding/seat belt ticket. On that occasion I wore a suit and was mistaken for a lawyer. The exact interaction went like this:
DA: Is Shakrai here?
Me: That's me.
DA: Your not his lawyer?
Me: Umm, no.
DA: Oh. People don't usually bother to dress up for this. [looks at papers] Hey, your my first case today that wasn't a DUI! Let's see what we can do with this.
Short story: Dropped the seat belt ticket and gave me an 1110(A) for the speeding (failure to obey a traffic control device). Had a decent ($135 with court costs) fine but it wasn't chargeable for insurance purposes and only two points instead of six. Everybody else in court with me seemed to be there for a DUI or domestic violence. Most of them were wearing wife beaters with pit stains.
In my experience, treating them with a little respect goes a lot further than treating them like a "public servant".
I don't disrespect them. But I'm not going to admit guilt either. They are either going to write the ticket or they won't. It's really out of my hands if I get pulled over. I've had better luck dealing with the DAs office (gotten an 1110(A) every single time -- two times all I had to do was pay court costs) then I ever have at trying to talk my way out of a ticket.
How is it better to say "Yes I do" than to say "I think I was going about 65 (In a 55) but my speedometer's a little off"
Because if you use your wording with a NYS State Trooper they are going to attach exactly what you said (word for word) to your ticket and use it against you if you actually decide to take it to trial. Kiss whatever slim chance you might have had at beating it goodbye. If the DA is being a prick he might even be less inclined to deal if he sees that you admitted to speeding.
Some cops are better then others. I may even choose to strike up a conversation with a small town cop or sheriff. Every single state cop that I've ever dealt with is going to write you that ticket regardless of what you say. Ask any lawyer what you should do in that situation. None of them will recommend incriminating yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
And if the endpoint is somebody running a bittorrent client and seeding pirated material, then one would think that it would be in their best interest to enable encryption. If AT&T actually starts this, how long until encryption becomes the rule rather then the exception on torrents, and how long until there is a standard to encrypt everything in the protocol?
This is an arms race and I'm not going to bet against the networking geeks with nothing better to do then pirate content.
The last time I looked, AT&T is but one of nine Tier 1 carriers, and unless you are communicating with somebody on an ISP that exclusively obtains it's connectivity from AT&T, then what reason would your packets have to travel over an AT&T network? Granted, that's a huge chunk of the internet, but there's an even bigger chunk (in the US alone, never mind the rest of the World) that receives data transit from other providers that have nothing to do with AT&T.
This is a distressing trend and I'm worried about it... but I'm not going to panic until Level 3, Verizon, Global Crossing, ATDN, etc, etc jump on the bandwagon. And when that happens I'll be waiting for an end-to-end encrypted bittorrent-like protocol. How is AT&T going to tell the difference between that and a VPN to the office? And even if they can, how will they know whether it's a pirated movie, porn or (to use the /. favorite) a Linux ISO?
A lot of the old timers still look the other way. A lot of the young ones have better things to do and will look the other way -- unless they arrest you for something else, in which case the pot charges will be tacked on.
you can't get a low paying job without being tested for (some) drugsI've never worked anywhere that did random drug testing. Most of them do the initial test, but after that, who cares? I can stop smoking weed for a few weeks if I switch jobs.
For some reason I can't fathom, it took a Constitutional Amendment to legalize the prohibition of alcohol, but other drugs needed no such amendment.That's because SCOTUS decided that Congress has the power to regulate drugs under the oft-abused interstate commerce clause. Explain to me how growing pot for my personal consumption is "interstate commerce"
The entire corporate-run US government is anti(some)drug.Unless that drug has a patent and a powerful lobby behind it. Then they fall all over themselves denying the states the power to import cheaper drugs from Canada or denying Medicare the power to buy drugs in bulk and negotiate lower prices. *sigh*
is against a harmless plant that I used to greatly enjoy daily but can no longer affordYou can't afford it? Where do you live? Price has never been an issue for anybody I know that smokes weed... Granted, it would cost next to nothing if it was legalized, but still, current prices are hardly a deterrent to buying it. The biggest deterrent for me is the fear of buying something laced with other drugs or containments -- which is why it should be legal in the first place!
So yeah, drug prohibition is a bitch, but weed is still readily accessible and fairly cheap compared to the alternatives. I know that I get a lot more out of an eighth ($35-$50 depending on quality and other factors) then I would if I had spent that money on booze. And I'm lucky enough to live in New York, so getting caught ($100 fine) isn't a huge deterrent either... My last speeding ticket cost me more then a pot bust would.
C'mon over to my house and I'll taser you and see if you scream.
And that's a good thing? The problem that a lot of human rights organizations have with "less then lethal" weapons is that they lower the standard for when force can be applied. Whether or not he deserved to be removed from the room is a subject I'm not going to dwell on. But four officers couldn't remove one college student without using a taser? Give me a fucking break! How did they manage police work before they had tasers?
So, following your theory, T-Mobile and Verizon can stop telling people exactly how many peak minutes they are getting with their plan, because "abusive users" will carefully monitor their usage and go right up to the limit and then stop using it for the month, thus denying them the overage? They should just sell it as "unlimited" and cut people off who in their minds talk on the phone too much, right?
You say "abusive users", I say "maximizing the value of the service that I'm paying for".
The flight crew doesn't have a "need-to-know" whether or not the mission is real or a drill? Give me a fucking break! You've been watching too many movies.
I'm going with the other guy who replied to all of your messages. What makes you an authority on this subject? One of my friends was a nuke troop (MOS code: 2w231) at Whiteman Airforce Base and while she touts the standard line of "I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of nuclear weapons at...." line, she'd be the first to admit that even the ground crews are damn well aware of what they are handling. Ditto for the pilots.
Nice fear mongering but it's completely inaccurate. For starters the pilots would know what they are carrying and the days of 24/7 airborne nukes ended back in the 60s or 70s. It was too expensive, with too much room for error and quite redundant when we have a force of boomers that can't be detected/engaged/destroyed before launching.
Of course that weapons grade material would be traced back to the reactor in the United States that made it in the first place, thus rendering your conspiracy theory moot. Any halfway advanced nuclear power (think, the US, Russia, UK, France, Israel, etc) can tell from the isotopes of the material where and when it was produced.
I'm sorry, but your dead wrong. And it has nothing to do with the 4th Amendment. The bottom line is that if I refuse to let them check my bags they can't compel me to do so. Name a way for them to compel me to submit to a bag check that isn't breaking the law. They can't legally detain me or use force on me. It's unlawful arrest at best -- unlawful imprisonment (typically a felony) at worst.
Even if you agreed in writing to submit to a bag check and later refuse to do so they still can't force you to submit to it. The most they could do at that point is sue you for breach of contract and banish you from the store.
Actually, the last time I checked, you aren't required to answer any question the police ask you, besides your name (and address?).
"As a matter of policy I do not talk to the police without my attorney present. Here's his card." At that point the police officer damn well better stop asking you questions. His choices are to arrest you or let you go.
In New York State, all records related to the arrest are sealed and/or destroyed (including your fingerprints) if the case is resolved with a not guilty verdict or the charges are dropped. I've seen the court orders related to this and the only exception they allow for the release of records is for a pistol permit.
Your logic is flawed. Ignore the parent saying that you have to have consideration to enter into a contract. Let's say that you are correct and you have a contract with them and part of that contract says they get to check your bags.
When you refuse to submit to the bag check you are now in violation of your contract. That still does not give them the right to detain you. If I sign a contract with you and refuse to honor it do you gain arrest powers over me? No, you don't. The only thing you could do is sue me for whatever damages you incurred as a result of the contract being broken.
I would start driving away slowly and see just how far he's willing to take his little game. I suspect once your car starts moving they'd get out of your way. But I'm an asshole like that.
Repeat after me: That does not make it legal.
I'd agree that a better way of handling this would be to refuse to shop at those stores in the first place (why give them your money), but just because they put up that sign doesn't make it legal for them to detain you and force you to submit to that bag search.
If I put a sign on my front door that says "All female guests agree to have sex with me before leaving", and a female comes into my house anyway, does that mean I can use force to compel her to obey my "policy"? I kinda doubt it...
If it did, then debt collection agencies wouldn't waste their time calling people that owe money. They'd detain them until they paid it back.
You can't detain somebody over a contract dispute. End of story.
Sam's only checks receipts to mark them so you can't take them back into the store and get the same stuff without paying for it. In my experience they don't actually bother to look in your cart and compare it to the receipt. I've walked out of Sams with a shopping cart full of stuff that I paid for, but wasn't on my receipt (checked out under two different charge accounts, so two different receipts) and they only marked the one receipt that I presented. Didn't even comment on the fact that I had WAY more stuff in my cart then was on that one receipt.
No, it really wouldn't be legal. If I put a sign on my front door that says "All female guests agree to have sex with me before they leave" could I then detain somebody that tried to leave without obeying my "policy"?
Just because they put up a sign or make you sign something that doesn't mean it's legal or enforceable. Stop being a sheep and stand up for your rights.
I think he was lamenting the fact that it's going to cost the tax-payers money because of the officers mistake. It should cost the town money because that's the only way they will get the point -- but it still sucks.
That still doesn't mean that the bag check person can force you to let them check. By signing that you may have entered into a contract -- but a private party has no power to enforce a contract. The most they could do is sue you for breach of contract if you refused to allow your bags to be inspected.
Think about it. If you sign a promissory note and borrow money from me and refuse to pay it back what are my options? I can't detain you. I can't use physical force to make you honor the contract you signed. All I can do is sue you and hope that the court offers me relief.
You can't sign away your rights to a private individual or company. The most CostCo or Sams can do if you refuse to let them see something you paid for is terminate your membership and refuse to let you back. MAYBE they could sue you for breach of contract. But they can't use physical force to compel you to honor that contract. You don't check your constitutional rights at the door when you join one of those clubs.
The sad thing is that if I'm caught with some pot in the wrong state (not mine, thank god, decriminalized), or if I'm caught uploading a movie, I'm likely to be punished more severely then a child molester.
What's wrong with that picture?
Well, when I got pulled over by a State Trooper, he asked if I knew how fast I was going. Told him I did and by how much. He quoted my words and put them on the supporting deposition to be used against me. The son of a bitch also wrote me a seat belt ticket because my lap belt wasn't buckled. It was a car with automatic shoulder belts and manual lap belts. I had unbuckled the lap belt to get my wallet when I was pulled over. He didn't believe that and wrote the ticket anyway.
That's the extent of my interaction with the State Cops. But every single friend of mine that has likewise been pulled over received the ticket. I don't know where you live in New York but the Troopers in Troop C are assholes and will not cut you a break. Talking to them will not save you. Best to keep your mouth shut.
One other thing I'd like to add, is that in all the times I've been to traffic court, there is never a DA present. Just you (and a room full of other ticketed persons), the judge, and the cop (if they bother to show upUmm, then you either don't live in New York State or you live in the city (DMV handles tickets down there in an administrative fashion without "court"). Every single time I've been ticketed I dealt with the DAs office in whatever county (typically Broome, that's where I live) to get it fixed. The only time I ever went to court was for the aforementioned speeding/seat belt ticket. On that occasion I wore a suit and was mistaken for a lawyer. The exact interaction went like this:
DA: Is Shakrai here?
Me: That's me.
DA: Your not his lawyer?
Me: Umm, no.
DA: Oh. People don't usually bother to dress up for this. [looks at papers] Hey, your my first case today that wasn't a DUI! Let's see what we can do with this.
Short story: Dropped the seat belt ticket and gave me an 1110(A) for the speeding (failure to obey a traffic control device). Had a decent ($135 with court costs) fine but it wasn't chargeable for insurance purposes and only two points instead of six. Everybody else in court with me seemed to be there for a DUI or domestic violence. Most of them were wearing wife beaters with pit stains.
In my experience, treating them with a little respect goes a lot further than treating them like a "public servant".I don't disrespect them. But I'm not going to admit guilt either. They are either going to write the ticket or they won't. It's really out of my hands if I get pulled over. I've had better luck dealing with the DAs office (gotten an 1110(A) every single time -- two times all I had to do was pay court costs) then I ever have at trying to talk my way out of a ticket.
Because if you use your wording with a NYS State Trooper they are going to attach exactly what you said (word for word) to your ticket and use it against you if you actually decide to take it to trial. Kiss whatever slim chance you might have had at beating it goodbye. If the DA is being a prick he might even be less inclined to deal if he sees that you admitted to speeding.
Some cops are better then others. I may even choose to strike up a conversation with a small town cop or sheriff. Every single state cop that I've ever dealt with is going to write you that ticket regardless of what you say. Ask any lawyer what you should do in that situation. None of them will recommend incriminating yourself.
Seeing as how Congress has to approve a new VP in a joint session, yes, I think they could keep it vacant as long as they wanted.