The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
It's pretty clear that mandatory arbitration clauses in shrink-wrap contracts or in cases where one party has way more bargaining power must be illegal.
It's NOT clear at all that arbitration is illegal. You see, if the Constitution does not specifically forbid something it is legal unless a law or Act has been passed making it illegal.
Not only that, but much greater legal minds than you or I have determined that arbitration is Constitutional.
Now, you're welcome to pass laws that forbid arbitration, however there is nothing unconstitutional about it.
Besides, isn't the Left always telling us, in the case of Google/YT/FB censorship, that Constitutional limitations and restrictions only apply to the government and not private corporations?
You are not forced to use Google and there's no binding agreement between you or Google.
You are not forced to use or drive for Uber/Lyft and there's no binding agreement between drivers and Uber/Lyft until drivers knowingly and voluntarily enter into such an agreement. Drive for another ride-share if the terms are not to your liking.
The thing is, such contracts should not be legal. They clearly contradict the plain text of the Constitution.
Which specific part?
I don't remember a Constitutional clause forbidding private parties from engaging in arbitration or in contracts including an arbitration clause.
Besides, isn't the Left always telling us, in the case of Google/YT/FB censorship, that Constitutional limitations and restrictions only apply to the government and not private corporations?
You missed the part where the contract prohibits you from going to court.
No I did not "miss" anything, it's a lawful contract. That's the point.
Nobody forced drivers to sign the contract. There was no duress, threats, etc to sign up. They could choose to drive for another service or look for work in a totally different business.
What if the lawn service you hire suddenly decides that you are an employer and owe all of the crew retirement benefits, health insurance, etc when you only signed a contract with them to mow your small yard twice a month?
The 9th Circus was surprisingly and astonishingly correct here (mark it on the calendar!).
You don't get to renig on a lawful contract because you decide later on that you don't like the terms you freely and voluntarily signed a legally-binding contract for period, full-stop.
As usual you are spewing some phenomenally stupid shit.
Which you seem unable to refute with facts.
I'm pretty sure most people are not of the opinion "just watch the child pedo and tough the fuck up."
No, they're of the opinion; "Why did you take the job then? Find another if you don't like it. It's not like you're unskilled or you wouldn't have been hired there in the first place. Stop being a snowflake."
Strat, you're usually spot-on but in this case, we're looking at the result of Uber and Lyft's massive 'recruiting war' that they've been engaged in the past few years. The numbers have likely plateaued but there are now far too many drivers. Of course, the companies - and the customers - aren't likely to mind this one bit.
Thanks, I appreciate your kind words. Likewise, I usually find your posts interesting, insightful, and informative.
I was not referring to only Uber and Lyft. I acknowledge your point on that angle.
"Gig" jobs are not limited to Uber and Lyft or even ride-sharing. Even TFS/TFA states this. The live band or DJ at your local bar/club is a part of the "gig economy" as well.
Government keeps throwing in more obstacles, costs, etc on both the gig-workers and those who employ them which drives down what they make.
Government in the US strongly prefers "normal" employment as it's easier for the IRS to track, taxes/SS are taken out directly instead of individuals filing 1099s and paying only what they owe, rather than the government getting an interest-free loan from your paycheck until you file for a tax refund.
Government relies heavily on using our payroll withholding money for free. That's one of the reasons why the government hates things like Uber/Lyft...no payroll withholding and thus no interest-free loans to government.
Again I have to ask: what has being left or right to do with that? Why is "lefty" an insult in the USA? Or more precisely: why do you insult people who have a "left attitude" in politics?
Because Leftists are basically Marxists with various flavors of authoritarianism and tyranny (e.g. socialism, communism). Marxism in it's various forms has killed more of it's own citizens than disease, starvation, or wars between foreign nations.
All forms of Marxism are authoritarian by their very nature, as it forces individuals to act in the best interests of the collective and the State, not necessarily in their own best interests. That is evil.
Marxism in it's various forms is actually and literally worse than cancer.
A country of weaklings. If you don't think you can handle that shit (and I'm sure it is horrible) don't take the fucking job. Butch the fuck up.
This is nothing but attention-whoring and looking for a fat lawsuit payday from deep-pocketed FB.
I'm laughing at the fact that FB is reaping some of what it's sown in promoting Leftist-snowflake thinking and attitudes. "You're either an Oppressor or one of the Oppressed!"
I knew this shit was coming. Leftists, given sufficient time, always end up eating their own. Just look at how the MSM has changed how they treat the Clintons now, the kid-gloves have (at least somewhat) come off.
"Hey FB workers! FB should be giving you free safe spaces, comfort puppies, medical marijuana and a smoking room, and licensed psychiatric therapists or they're a bunch of Nazi fascists!" LOL!
There is also the possibility that the local prosecutor found out about an alleged rape and is doing his duty, just like he or she would do in any other case of alleged rape.
Yep, he got right on it after receiving that "anonymous tip" from the FBI who illegally had Wilson under heavy electronic surveillance. After all, Wilson's 3D Liberator files were an existential threat to those more-authoritarian regimes we have a cozy intelligence relationship with.
If the Deep State will illegally surveil Congressmen, journalists, and POTUS candidates, it's rather a given they'd have Wilson under a microscope. Anyone who says otherwise is either a shill or hopelessly blind and naive.
But this is where your logic breaks down. Why would the attorney general of the state of Texas think Cody Wilson was a problem? Why would they target him.
Because the Texas AG first off likely had little to do with a local prosecutor's decision to prosecute, and that local prosecutor likely had significant pressure applied by the Federal government and many others who don't want to see the Liberator 3D printer files be posted to the internet, and the prosecutor may even be a Democrat, IDK. Heck, he may have simply received an "anonymous tip" from an FBI agent and was just doing his job. Also, since this "technically" is not about the 2A, not sure how that would matter legally to the State AG.
I would not be surprised to find out that the FBI set him up with this girl and tipped off local law enforcement precisely to destroy Wilson.
These are no Boy Scouts we're dealing with in government in either Party. They play as dirty as they think they can get away with, whether (R) or (D). Again, another reason why I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. The "establishment" of both sides are thoroughly corrupt.
Strat, it was a Texas law that got Cody Wilson in trouble. Conservative, freedom-loving, libertarian, come-and-take-it Texas. I know you have an axe to grind, but this wasn't the federal government to blame.
That'[s why I'm a small-"L" libertarian, and not a Christian-Right conservative. I know it was Texas State law, not Federal law. That was not the point and you well know it. Don't be deliberately obtuse.
The point was that this was a use of selective enforcement at the very least, and quite likely judging from past government behaviors, that it was a deliberate, orchestrated setup from the beginning to take down someone they considered a "problem".
Might as well treat all consensual sexual encounters as pedophilia.
That's the point of so many laws, many of them conflicting. So many Federal laws alone that they've been unable to count them. It's been said that the average person commits three felonies a day..
"You're all criminals, but we'll generously choose to not prosecute you for now, as long as you stay in line, keep your mouth shut, and obey."
Because living off singles distributed through streaming doesn't pay.
I'm not sure living off of singles being distributed by terrestrial broadcasting was possible but for a few major artists either.
The set containing "the music industry" and the set containing "performing/working artists & musicians" only narrowly intersects in a Venn diagram.
Even major artists tour because they typically get far more money from live shows + merch sales than they do from the sales of recorded music, whether that be CDs or streaming or whatever.
You should check out local/regional artists and support them if you're tired of corporate auto-tuned, algorithm-written, commercial shit. The band I played with recently records every show in video & audio and offers audiences the opportunity to purchase a DVD of the show they just attended. No middlemen, no labels, no DRM, no mega-corps, and the artists get all the money.
The "music industry" only produces the sonic equivalent of crack. The unsigned working/touring artists are where the real music is.
But the melting has nothing to do with the magma plume, since the melting only started a few years ago, and the magma plume has been sitting there for millions of years.
"Researchers at NASA have discovered a huge upwelling of hot rock under Marie Byrd Land, which lies between the Ross Ice Shelf and the Ross Sea, is creating vast lakes and rivers under the ice sheet. The presence of a huge mantle plume could explain why the region is so unstable today, and why it collapsed so quickly at the end of the last Ice Age, 11,000 years ago."
I want to know if those scientists took the Antarctic magma plume recently discovered to be causing antarctic ice melting into account
Probably not. Why don't you call them up to let them know ? Go ahead and say that you represent the Slashdot community of armchair experts if they give you a bad time.
Nah, I think I'll just go with ignoring their ridiculous and impractical (not to mention obscenely expensive) proposals.
You're welcome to waste *your* money on it if you like wasting your money. I'll not be wasting any of mine on it however, thanks all the same.
The melting glaciers are absorbing heat energy as they melt.
Very marginally, from the ocean itself, not the atmosphere... and transfer of temperature changes from deep water is incredibly slow. This small and very localized loss would have pretty much zero impact on global warming as a whole, compared to how much the water would rise if the land-locked glaciers were allowed to go free.
I want to know if those scientists took the Antarctic magma plume recently discovered to be causing antarctic ice melting into account, and if they've checked under the Arctic for a similar magma plume. It would make sense if there were matching magma plumes at both poles.
How would undersea walls stop magma plumes? (not that anybody has the money for such a gigantic planet-wide engineering operation)
Humans need to concentrate more on adaptation rather than hopelessly attempting to halt the procession of global climate cycles and wasting resources that could save lives. Sure, reduce pollution and stuff, but the smart move is to put the most effort into adaptation.
They can start by making seaside property owners pay the full cost of flood insurance rather than forcing everyone to foot the lion's share of costs for insuring luxury beachside homes for the rich.
That sovereign country can make all the rules it wants.
Google is in the business of make money.
Then Google can move to China and become a proper Chinese-owned & -based company.
Google should be blacklisted from any US government contracts because they are a national security risk, as they are open to blackmail over their Chinese market access by the Chinese government. Many individuals and businesses have lost the privilege of bidding on US government contracts for far, far less.
Tell your congresscritters to ban Google from government contracts if it works with oppressive regimes like China if they want your votes for the midterms.
Slashdot Mirror
It's called a Confidential Information and Invention Assignment (CIIA) Agreement. And yes him talking about this is a violation of it.
In this case the point is moot.
Google won't press this issue against him in court.
They'd open themselves to pre-trial discovery.
The very last thing Google wants is more investigation, publicity, and press around this topic.
Strat
Was that bad? Should I not have done that?
They know full well what they're doing. This is no mistake. This only means they'll not use cookies to track you.
Their intention is to modify the thought and behavior.of the population.
See this leaked internal Google video.
https://youtu.be/QDVVo14A_fo
Here's a good analysis by YT poster 'Computing Forever'.
https://youtu.be/UqByX959pxg
This is some seriously fucked up, dystopian-as-hell shit. It should frighten the piss out of anyone with more than two brain cells.
Google must be stopped.
Strat
[One rule for the rank and file... ] ...another rule for Hilary.
History will judge Hillary and Bill and those who conspired with them, and it will not be kind.
Strat
It's NOT clear at all that arbitration is illegal. You see, if the Constitution does not specifically forbid something it is legal unless a law or Act has been passed making it illegal.
Not only that, but much greater legal minds than you or I have determined that arbitration is Constitutional.
Now, you're welcome to pass laws that forbid arbitration, however there is nothing unconstitutional about it.
You are not forced to use or drive for Uber/Lyft and there's no binding agreement between drivers and Uber/Lyft until drivers knowingly and voluntarily enter into such an agreement. Drive for another ride-share if the terms are not to your liking.
Strat
The thing is, such contracts should not be legal. They clearly contradict the plain text of the Constitution.
Which specific part?
I don't remember a Constitutional clause forbidding private parties from engaging in arbitration or in contracts including an arbitration clause.
Besides, isn't the Left always telling us, in the case of Google/YT/FB censorship, that Constitutional limitations and restrictions only apply to the government and not private corporations?
Strat
and people on the right are not authoritarian at all (or should I ignore the Religious fundamentalist moral police)
Yep, you killed the hell out of that strawman.
I have just as much of a problem with the religious-fundamentalist moral police as I do with Leftist cultural/PC moral police.
I'm a small-"L" libertarian. I'm forcing my ideology on you *right NOW* because I'm leaving you the hell alone. Horrors!
Strat
You missed the part where the contract prohibits you from going to court.
No I did not "miss" anything, it's a lawful contract. That's the point.
Nobody forced drivers to sign the contract. There was no duress, threats, etc to sign up. They could choose to drive for another service or look for work in a totally different business.
What if the lawn service you hire suddenly decides that you are an employer and owe all of the crew retirement benefits, health insurance, etc when you only signed a contract with them to mow your small yard twice a month?
The 9th Circus was surprisingly and astonishingly correct here (mark it on the calendar!).
You don't get to renig on a lawful contract because you decide later on that you don't like the terms you freely and voluntarily signed a legally-binding contract for period, full-stop.
Strat
So, Uber is off the hook simply because lawful contracts you sign are still legally binding in the US, whodathunk?
FTFY
Strat
As usual you are spewing some phenomenally stupid shit.
Which you seem unable to refute with facts.
I'm pretty sure most people are not of the opinion "just watch the child pedo and tough the fuck up."
No, they're of the opinion; "Why did you take the job then? Find another if you don't like it. It's not like you're unskilled or you wouldn't have been hired there in the first place. Stop being a snowflake."
I do however understand
This statement is not born out by your comments.
Strat
Strat, you're usually spot-on but in this case, we're looking at the result of Uber and Lyft's massive 'recruiting war' that they've been engaged in the past few years. The numbers have likely plateaued but there are now far too many drivers. Of course, the companies - and the customers - aren't likely to mind this one bit.
Thanks, I appreciate your kind words. Likewise, I usually find your posts interesting, insightful, and informative.
I was not referring to only Uber and Lyft. I acknowledge your point on that angle.
"Gig" jobs are not limited to Uber and Lyft or even ride-sharing. Even TFS/TFA states this. The live band or DJ at your local bar/club is a part of the "gig economy" as well.
Government keeps throwing in more obstacles, costs, etc on both the gig-workers and those who employ them which drives down what they make.
Government in the US strongly prefers "normal" employment as it's easier for the IRS to track, taxes/SS are taken out directly instead of individuals filing 1099s and paying only what they owe, rather than the government getting an interest-free loan from your paycheck until you file for a tax refund.
Government relies heavily on using our payroll withholding money for free. That's one of the reasons why the government hates things like Uber/Lyft...no payroll withholding and thus no interest-free loans to government.
Strat
Again I have to ask: what has being left or right to do with that?
Why is "lefty" an insult in the USA?
Or more precisely: why do you insult people who have a "left attitude" in politics?
Because Leftists are basically Marxists with various flavors of authoritarianism and tyranny (e.g. socialism, communism). Marxism in it's various forms has killed more of it's own citizens than disease, starvation, or wars between foreign nations.
All forms of Marxism are authoritarian by their very nature, as it forces individuals to act in the best interests of the collective and the State, not necessarily in their own best interests. That is evil.
Marxism in it's various forms is actually and literally worse than cancer.
Strat
A country of weaklings. If you don't think you can handle that shit (and I'm sure it is horrible) don't take the fucking job. Butch the fuck up.
This is nothing but attention-whoring and looking for a fat lawsuit payday from deep-pocketed FB.
I'm laughing at the fact that FB is reaping some of what it's sown in promoting Leftist-snowflake thinking and attitudes. "You're either an Oppressor or one of the Oppressed!"
I knew this shit was coming. Leftists, given sufficient time, always end up eating their own. Just look at how the MSM has changed how they treat the Clintons now, the kid-gloves have (at least somewhat) come off.
"Hey FB workers! FB should be giving you free safe spaces, comfort puppies, medical marijuana and a smoking room, and licensed psychiatric therapists or they're a bunch of Nazi fascists!" LOL!
I will admit to a bit of schadenfreude here, heh!
Well, OK, maybe more than just a bit. :P
Strat
Every government is doing their damnedest to kill "gig" jobs, what else did they expect?
Strat
There is also the possibility that the local prosecutor found out about an alleged rape and is doing his duty, just like he or she would do in any other case of alleged rape.
Yep, he got right on it after receiving that "anonymous tip" from the FBI who illegally had Wilson under heavy electronic surveillance. After all, Wilson's 3D Liberator files were an existential threat to those more-authoritarian regimes we have a cozy intelligence relationship with.
If the Deep State will illegally surveil Congressmen, journalists, and POTUS candidates, it's rather a given they'd have Wilson under a microscope. Anyone who says otherwise is either a shill or hopelessly blind and naive.
Strat
But this is where your logic breaks down. Why would the attorney general of the state of Texas think Cody Wilson was a problem? Why would they target him.
Because the Texas AG first off likely had little to do with a local prosecutor's decision to prosecute, and that local prosecutor likely had significant pressure applied by the Federal government and many others who don't want to see the Liberator 3D printer files be posted to the internet, and the prosecutor may even be a Democrat, IDK. Heck, he may have simply received an "anonymous tip" from an FBI agent and was just doing his job. Also, since this "technically" is not about the 2A, not sure how that would matter legally to the State AG.
I would not be surprised to find out that the FBI set him up with this girl and tipped off local law enforcement precisely to destroy Wilson.
These are no Boy Scouts we're dealing with in government in either Party. They play as dirty as they think they can get away with, whether (R) or (D). Again, another reason why I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. The "establishment" of both sides are thoroughly corrupt.
Strat
Strat, it was a Texas law that got Cody Wilson in trouble. Conservative, freedom-loving, libertarian, come-and-take-it Texas. I know you have an axe to grind, but this wasn't the federal government to blame.
That'[s why I'm a small-"L" libertarian, and not a Christian-Right conservative. I know it was Texas State law, not Federal law. That was not the point and you well know it. Don't be deliberately obtuse.
The point was that this was a use of selective enforcement at the very least, and quite likely judging from past government behaviors, that it was a deliberate, orchestrated setup from the beginning to take down someone they considered a "problem".
Strat
Might as well treat all consensual sexual encounters as pedophilia.
That's the point of so many laws, many of them conflicting. So many Federal laws alone that they've been unable to count them. It's been said that the average person commits three felonies a day..
"You're all criminals, but we'll generously choose to not prosecute you for now, as long as you stay in line, keep your mouth shut, and obey."
Strat
The set containing "the music industry" and the set containing "performing/working artists & musicians" only narrowly intersects in a Venn diagram.
Even major artists tour because they typically get far more money from live shows + merch sales than they do from the sales of recorded music, whether that be CDs or streaming or whatever.
You should check out local/regional artists and support them if you're tired of corporate auto-tuned, algorithm-written, commercial shit. The band I played with recently records every show in video & audio and offers audiences the opportunity to purchase a DVD of the show they just attended. No middlemen, no labels, no DRM, no mega-corps, and the artists get all the money.
The "music industry" only produces the sonic equivalent of crack. The unsigned working/touring artists are where the real music is.
Strat
The plume has been there forever. The melting accelerated recently.
So the scientists in the quoted story have it wrong and YOU know better?
LOL!
Thanks for the laugh, have a nice day.
Strat
But the melting has nothing to do with the magma plume, since the melting only started a few years ago, and the magma plume has been sitting there for millions of years.
Maybe you missed this:
https://science.slashdot.org/s...
"Researchers at NASA have discovered a huge upwelling of hot rock under Marie Byrd Land, which lies between the Ross Ice Shelf and the Ross Sea, is creating vast lakes and rivers under the ice sheet. The presence of a huge mantle plume could explain why the region is so unstable today, and why it collapsed so quickly at the end of the last Ice Age, 11,000 years ago."
You're welcome.
Strat
I want to know if those scientists took the Antarctic magma plume recently discovered to be causing antarctic ice melting into account
Probably not. Why don't you call them up to let them know ? Go ahead and say that you represent the Slashdot community of armchair experts if they give you a bad time.
Nah, I think I'll just go with ignoring their ridiculous and impractical (not to mention obscenely expensive) proposals.
You're welcome to waste *your* money on it if you like wasting your money. I'll not be wasting any of mine on it however, thanks all the same.
Strat
I want to know if those scientists took the Antarctic magma plume recently discovered to be causing antarctic ice melting into account, and if they've checked under the Arctic for a similar magma plume. It would make sense if there were matching magma plumes at both poles.
How would undersea walls stop magma plumes? (not that anybody has the money for such a gigantic planet-wide engineering operation)
Humans need to concentrate more on adaptation rather than hopelessly attempting to halt the procession of global climate cycles and wasting resources that could save lives. Sure, reduce pollution and stuff, but the smart move is to put the most effort into adaptation.
They can start by making seaside property owners pay the full cost of flood insurance rather than forcing everyone to foot the lion's share of costs for insuring luxury beachside homes for the rich.
Strat
#BlueStrat2020!
(Seriously, he'd be better than >99% of candidates. He may be an idiot, but at least he's an *honest*, non-flip-flopping idiot!)
LOL!
Thanks (I think?). :P
Sorry, but there's no freakin' way I'd ever be involved in *that* political shit-show!
Strat
That sovereign country can make all the rules it wants.
Google is in the business of make money.
Then Google can move to China and become a proper Chinese-owned & -based company.
Google should be blacklisted from any US government contracts because they are a national security risk, as they are open to blackmail over their Chinese market access by the Chinese government. Many individuals and businesses have lost the privilege of bidding on US government contracts for far, far less.
Tell your congresscritters to ban Google from government contracts if it works with oppressive regimes like China if they want your votes for the midterms.
Strat
Well, naturally!
Otherwise, the wrong lizards might get in.
Even worse than a lizard in the "tolerant" Left's view, a conservative or libertarian might get in! Horrors!!!
Strat