Because of gerrymandering, the polling station that was selected for me in my district is about 8 miles across a city in a location without a bus stop and the closest public transportation about 3 miles away.
1) Perhaps you could find some sort of way to carpool or even split a cab... what with the entire district having a reason to go there that same day. Not to mention political parties and volunteer groups all over the place running busses etc.
If only there were some sort of alternative like the ability to mail in a ballot... oh... wait. There is.
2) I agree with you gerrymandering ought to be criminal.
The fact that the gender wasn't mentioned in the summary at all let alone the sentence he singled out; led me to initially assume he'd just assumed it was a boy. So I read it as:
I read it as:
"A boy did this, so what?... why wouldn't a girl be able to?"
I realized as the thread developed that he meant:
"A girl did this; why would we think she couldn't?"
And he originally replied to the thread himself essentially confirming this and also WTFing the fact that the gender he thought was in the summary wasn't actually present./shrug. one of those cases where I wish I could at least edit posts or add an update to them after the fact...
because some instances below that cutoff would be dogs with the new OS and it's not worth their time to figure out exactly which combinations of hardware would work and which wouldn't.
So they publish their minimum requirements. And then if the user wants to try it on a system older than that or there is hardware in the system no longer officially supported by the OS, then that's up to the user. Windows
And even on phones, all you needed was the option to go back. Its not like there was any reason that you should have had to "live through that hell".
The two halves of your sentence contradict themselves. We're not a welfare state, so there shouldn't be 'public policy' wage fixations.
That is not a contradiction.
A minimum wage is essentially a form of 'welfare.'
No more than regulations are "essentially essentially a form of planned economy"
They are; but the presence of some regulations does not mean free market capitalism is all gone.
The world is not black and white.
It's also a huge incentive for businesses to adopt more automation and/or offshore as many jobs as they can to places where there are no minimum wages,
Which is why civilized nations protect their citizens with import tarifs etc.
And yes, the TPP is an idiotic move that will further erode local industry.
Backward compatibility for both iOS and Mac OS X go back as far as the hardware itself will allow, and Apple is, for all its other faults (and they are many), a role model in this particular instance.
Not really. As 'far as the hardware will allow' is frequently that apple has decided to drop support for a chipset or io controller or something. And the old hardware would run have run the new software just fine if they hadn't simply dropped support for it.
You can't drop support for a chipset from the OS, and then turn around then say your OS doesn't run on it because the hardware won't allow it. Apple does exactly that all the time.
In other cases they've set completely arbitrary limits on old hardware, and I myself have on several occasions used 3rd party shims to get new versions of OSX onto older hardware that apple had decided was no longer supported -- and they ran just fine -- in some cases they ran better (as for a while OSX was becoming faster with successive releases (lepard to snow leopard in particular). And if the older hardware had been a high spec unit (with extra ram from the factory) or had aftermarket ram upgrades they ran just fine.
Apple certainly isn't the worst offender by a long shot. But they are hardly the golden boy here.
Messages on the phone uses SMS, which works even on dumb phones
No, not quite. Messages on iphone CAN use SMS to communicate with other phones but that's about it. So yes a dumbphone can reason an iphone with sms, and the iphone will display the sms in messages and let the iphone user use messages to reply... but that''s it.
For example, what if the person you are trying to reach from your 'dumb phone' however is NOT using an iphone with an SMS plan? Or what if they are using messages on an iPod touch or macbook pro? These can't "fail over to SMS" to receive messages from an android or dumb phone. And since the android and dumb phone can't use messages native protocol they can't communicate.
I've been up and down this mess several times already. My daughters friends have a mix of hand me down iphones, ipod touches, and ipads that they chat on with messages. If I give my daughter an android, which would be my preference -- she would not be able to chat with her friends unless they ALL moved over to an alternative messaging app (such as skype), which would be difficult for her to make happen. (In some cases the kids are using a 'family' ipad; and would need their parents permission to even install another app... so the whole group is basically captured on messages and ios or lose the ability to talk to these kids.)
Still, Skype is owned by Microsoft, and his example is literally using Microsoft on Microsoft to talk to a Microsoft product somewhere else. It's a dumb statement.
Agreed his particular example wasn't great. However you can use skype on everything from smart TVs to blackberries to linux desktops. Yes, it is end to end a microsoft software product, and not truly open, but it runs on pretty much anything.
the only one who has not is the one with financial incentive not to (because they sell hardware).
That's wrong. Microsoft has finanicial incentive not to... they'd prefer you ran windows and xbox and windows phones; you might argue they HAVE to support ios or become irrelevant; but that doesn't explain their support for osx, blackberry, or linux...
Similarly, apple messages+facetime, by being apple only IS hurting it. Lots of people use it on their mac or ipad, but they all have to have something else installed to talk to the other half of the planet who isn't running an apple product. If messages+facetime was x-plat it could well become as ubiquitous as skype; and it would be a good halo product to attract people to the apple hardware. As it is, it's mostly within-family product because no large organization or heterogenous group of people are ever ALL running just Apple products. There's always someone with a Windows computer or Android phone... and usually lots of people like that.
Even in my daughters group; as the kids are getting older and starting to get phones -- i fully expect the 'apple monopoly' on their communications is going to end. Because as they advance in their teens they'll all soon have phones etc. And they'll have permission to install apps etc. They'll all but inevitably shift to hangouts or skype or something as a group. I can already see it beginning; and my daughters next phone won't be an iphone -- none of the upcoming handme downs are iphones so unless she get a job buys it herself but that's still a few years out yet.
It's a competitive disadvantage to needlessly remove a pool of employees.
It can be yes. I specifically said that as long there was sufficient suitable candidates after screening out users it wouldn't be a concern to the employer.
It goes without saying that if there aren't sufficient suitable candidates after screening that you'll need to go back and start looking at those screened candidates.
Your anecdote is an example of this happening; and I don't dispute that it happens; but that hardly makes it universally the case that what is true for one large organization and one (especially widespread) drug is true in all cases or for all drugs.
The only reason you would take cash regularly from a drug user is if you are supplying him with drugs.
Not really. Perhaps I work as an employee under the table and my boss is a drug user. OR his wife who picks it up at the bank is. Or the manager who actually hands me my pay. Or maybe its even the bank teller at the business counter at the bank.
In any case, it would take several separate tests over a period of weeks to establish that I take cash regularly from a drug user. Otherwise, the money could be from pretty much anything... maybe he bought my kids bunk bed frame at our last garage sale...
If it is drug-tainted, it's up to you to prove you didn't get it by selling drugs to a drug user.
Clearly its not tainted by any drugs you may have sold. You would have gotten the money before they took said drugs, and any residue from them taking the drugs would not appear on the money.
At worst they've proven you've transacted with a person who takes drugs. That's not even slightly illegal.
QED.
That said, yes, civil forfeiture is often abused. And as I've replied elsewhere in the thread a couple times -- if they are out to abuse civil forfeiture -- then it really doesn't matter what the outcome of this test is; they'll just take your possessions on some other flimsy pretext. (Simply having significant cash on you, within 100 miles of a border, irrespective of any drug evidence has been sufficient in the past for them to seize it....no need for a chemistry set)
Bottom line: this test really has no bearing on the problem of civil forfeiture.
Non-use does imply they are not actively addicted though. So selecting non-users effectively screens the problem addicts out.
The fact that it screens out users who aren't addicts as well? I don't dispute it. But what employer cares? As long as they get enough good candidate applicants from the non-using pool to hire from, the fact that they screened some potentially good candidates from the using but not addicted category isn't much of a concern.
Fair enough. I maintain that controlled tests can relatively easily determine if a chemical is being excreted vs simply being contaminated by external sources.
But it certainly means you can't draw any conclusions from a fingerprint obtained without those controls.
Still makes the test useful potentially useful for employment screening. Less so in other scenarios.
The abuse of civil forfeiture is well documented; but this test isn't really relevant. If they intend to abuse civil forfeiture to take your stuff, this test isn't going to be their go-to.
And if they don't intend to abuse civil forfeiture, all this test does is establish evidence that you've taken cocaine.
If drug use is detected
They need evidence of drug related crimes. Technically, past drug *use* isn't even illegal.
It's pretty trivial to develop procedures to isolate what you might be transferring to your fingers from things you handle to what you are literally secreting from your fingers.
You linked to an article about the detection of surface cocaine; which amounts to evidence that you have handled cocaine -- and the well known miscarriage of justice where they use evidence of surface cocaine as evidence of handling cocaine, when we know that traceable amounts of cocaine is on our currency.
This however is a test that establishes whether or not you USE cocaine. A little surface cocaine on your money isn't going to have you sweating out these chemicals in any significant quantity. So your thesis that this test is going to lead them to confiscating your money doesn't really add up.
Further, this test, a chemical test showing that you've recently TAKEN cocaine... how does that amount to evidence that the money in your wallet is from the drug trade and therefore evidence of crime and subject to confiscation? It doesn't even sort of kind of add up.
Also to detect anyone who has any money, for confiscation of evidence of course
vs the summary
[...] by the excreted metabolites â" benzoylecgonine and methylecgonine â" resulting from abuse of the drug.
Sure. Unless simply handling money doesn't result in your body absorbing enough cocaine to synthesize and excrete " benzoylecgonine and methylecgonine".
So make a big hit work that people will be listening or reading 60 years from now.
Well I would, but copyright ter,s aren't long enough to motivate me yet. I just don't have enough incentive. Maybe if they were just bit longer, more people like me would switch to working on art./sarcasm;)
it would conceivably be possible for an artist to create a work when very young and outlive its copyright.
And this would be bad because?
I don't get paid again for the work i did last week, but you need to keep getting paid for something you did at 15 when you are 85 years old? Seriously? WTF?
The purpose of copyright is to provide a limited monopoly to provide incentive to create. Are you SERIOUSLY arguing there are 15 year old artists and authors that are sitting there thinking... I was going to create a new work of art today, but then i realized i wouldn't still be getting royalties in my 80s and realized I couldn't make ends meet like that, and went to work on an assembly line instead...
And therefore less art is created, and the world is poorer for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Because of gerrymandering, the polling station that was selected for me in my district is about 8 miles across a city in a location without a bus stop and the closest public transportation about 3 miles away.
1) Perhaps you could find some sort of way to carpool or even split a cab... what with the entire district having a reason to go there that same day. Not to mention political parties and volunteer groups all over the place running busses etc.
If only there were some sort of alternative like the ability to mail in a ballot... oh... wait. There is.
2) I agree with you gerrymandering ought to be criminal.
I used to work as a field tech, back in the day.
Yeah, "back in the day". Welcome to the new age of gps in trucks, and in company issued phones with fleet tracking.
Yep, I read it the other way.
The fact that the gender wasn't mentioned in the summary at all let alone the sentence he singled out; led me to initially assume he'd just assumed it was a boy. So I read it as:
I read it as:
"A boy did this, so what?... why wouldn't a girl be able to?"
I realized as the thread developed that he meant:
"A girl did this; why would we think she couldn't?"
And he originally replied to the thread himself essentially confirming this and also WTFing the fact that the gender he thought was in the summary wasn't actually present. /shrug. one of those cases where I wish I could at least edit posts or add an update to them after the fact...
because some instances below that cutoff would be dogs with the new OS and it's not worth their time to figure out exactly which combinations of hardware would work and which wouldn't.
So they publish their minimum requirements. And then if the user wants to try it on a system older than that or there is hardware in the system no longer officially supported by the OS, then that's up to the user. Windows
And even on phones, all you needed was the option to go back. Its not like there was any reason that you should have had to "live through that hell".
The two halves of your sentence contradict themselves. We're not a welfare state, so there shouldn't be 'public policy' wage fixations.
That is not a contradiction.
A minimum wage is essentially a form of 'welfare.'
No more than regulations are "essentially essentially a form of planned economy"
They are; but the presence of some regulations does not mean free market capitalism is all gone.
The world is not black and white.
It's also a huge incentive for businesses to adopt more automation and/or offshore as many jobs as they can to places where there are no minimum wages,
Which is why civilized nations protect their citizens with import tarifs etc.
And yes, the TPP is an idiotic move that will further erode local industry.
Backward compatibility for both iOS and Mac OS X go back as far as the hardware itself will allow, and Apple is, for all its other faults (and they are many), a role model in this particular instance.
Not really. As 'far as the hardware will allow' is frequently that apple has decided to drop support for a chipset or io controller or something. And the old hardware would run have run the new software just fine if they hadn't simply dropped support for it.
You can't drop support for a chipset from the OS, and then turn around then say your OS doesn't run on it because the hardware won't allow it. Apple does exactly that all the time.
In other cases they've set completely arbitrary limits on old hardware, and I myself have on several occasions used 3rd party shims to get new versions of OSX onto older hardware that apple had decided was no longer supported -- and they ran just fine -- in some cases they ran better (as for a while OSX was becoming faster with successive releases (lepard to snow leopard in particular). And if the older hardware had been a high spec unit (with extra ram from the factory) or had aftermarket ram upgrades they ran just fine.
Apple certainly isn't the worst offender by a long shot. But they are hardly the golden boy here.
Messages on the phone uses SMS, which works even on dumb phones
No, not quite. Messages on iphone CAN use SMS to communicate with other phones but that's about it. So yes a dumbphone can reason an iphone with sms, and the iphone will display the sms in messages and let the iphone user use messages to reply... but that''s it.
For example, what if the person you are trying to reach from your 'dumb phone' however is NOT using an iphone with an SMS plan? Or what if they are using messages on an iPod touch or macbook pro? These can't "fail over to SMS" to receive messages from an android or dumb phone. And since the android and dumb phone can't use messages native protocol they can't communicate.
I've been up and down this mess several times already. My daughters friends have a mix of hand me down iphones, ipod touches, and ipads that they chat on with messages. If I give my daughter an android, which would be my preference -- she would not be able to chat with her friends unless they ALL moved over to an alternative messaging app (such as skype), which would be difficult for her to make happen. (In some cases the kids are using a 'family' ipad; and would need their parents permission to even install another app... so the whole group is basically captured on messages and ios or lose the ability to talk to these kids.)
Still, Skype is owned by Microsoft, and his example is literally using Microsoft on Microsoft to talk to a Microsoft product somewhere else. It's a dumb statement.
Agreed his particular example wasn't great. However you can use skype on everything from smart TVs to blackberries to linux desktops. Yes, it is end to end a microsoft software product, and not truly open, but it runs on pretty much anything.
the only one who has not is the one with financial incentive not to (because they sell hardware).
That's wrong. Microsoft has finanicial incentive not to... they'd prefer you ran windows and xbox and windows phones; you might argue they HAVE to support ios or become irrelevant; but that doesn't explain their support for osx, blackberry, or linux...
Similarly, apple messages+facetime, by being apple only IS hurting it. Lots of people use it on their mac or ipad, but they all have to have something else installed to talk to the other half of the planet who isn't running an apple product. If messages+facetime was x-plat it could well become as ubiquitous as skype; and it would be a good halo product to attract people to the apple hardware. As it is, it's mostly within-family product because no large organization or heterogenous group of people are ever ALL running just Apple products. There's always someone with a Windows computer or Android phone... and usually lots of people like that.
Even in my daughters group; as the kids are getting older and starting to get phones -- i fully expect the 'apple monopoly' on their communications is going to end. Because as they advance in their teens they'll all soon have phones etc. And they'll have permission to install apps etc. They'll all but inevitably shift to hangouts or skype or something as a group. I can already see it beginning; and my daughters next phone won't be an iphone -- none of the upcoming handme downs are iphones so unless she get a job buys it herself but that's still a few years out yet.
Seems a bit condescending, why wouldn't a girl be able to do this?
What are you talking about? A girl did do this.
But messages and facetime are both not, which would be the relevant products here.
It's a competitive disadvantage to needlessly remove a pool of employees.
It can be yes. I specifically said that as long there was sufficient suitable candidates after screening out users it wouldn't be a concern to the employer.
It goes without saying that if there aren't sufficient suitable candidates after screening that you'll need to go back and start looking at those screened candidates.
Your anecdote is an example of this happening; and I don't dispute that it happens; but that hardly makes it universally the case that what is true for one large organization and one (especially widespread) drug is true in all cases or for all drugs.
The only reason you would take cash regularly from a drug user is if you are supplying him with drugs.
Not really. Perhaps I work as an employee under the table and my boss is a drug user. OR his wife who picks it up at the bank is. Or the manager who actually hands me my pay. Or maybe its even the bank teller at the business counter at the bank.
In any case, it would take several separate tests over a period of weeks to establish that I take cash regularly from a drug user. Otherwise, the money could be from pretty much anything... maybe he bought my kids bunk bed frame at our last garage sale...
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=trade+dre...
If it is drug-tainted, it's up to you to prove you didn't get it by selling drugs to a drug user.
Clearly its not tainted by any drugs you may have sold. You would have gotten the money before they took said drugs, and any residue from them taking the drugs would not appear on the money.
At worst they've proven you've transacted with a person who takes drugs. That's not even slightly illegal.
QED.
That said, yes, civil forfeiture is often abused. And as I've replied elsewhere in the thread a couple times -- if they are out to abuse civil forfeiture -- then it really doesn't matter what the outcome of this test is; they'll just take your possessions on some other flimsy pretext. (Simply having significant cash on you, within 100 miles of a border, irrespective of any drug evidence has been sufficient in the past for them to seize it....no need for a chemistry set)
Bottom line: this test really has no bearing on the problem of civil forfeiture.
Does it establish that a drug user sweated on your money? If your money tests positive, then it should be seized, right?
Because they have evidence my money was handled by a sweaty drug USER? How is that even theoretically illegal? Why should it be seized?
Aha... but all it would take is ....
the soap in the bathroom of the police office to be contaminated
And all it takes to resolve that is using individually wrapped soap packets.
I don't disagree with the rest of your post vis a vis privacy, invasiveness, etc.
Non-use does imply they are not actively addicted though. So selecting non-users effectively screens the problem addicts out.
The fact that it screens out users who aren't addicts as well? I don't dispute it. But what employer cares? As long as they get enough good candidate applicants from the non-using pool to hire from, the fact that they screened some potentially good candidates from the using but not addicted category isn't much of a concern.
But if they are willing to do that, then it really doesn't matter what this fingerprint test reveals, wouldn't you agree?
Fair enough. I maintain that controlled tests can relatively easily determine if a chemical is being excreted vs simply being contaminated by external sources.
But it certainly means you can't draw any conclusions from a fingerprint obtained without those controls.
Still makes the test useful potentially useful for employment screening. Less so in other scenarios.
The abuse of civil forfeiture is well documented; but this test isn't really relevant. If they intend to abuse civil forfeiture to take your stuff, this test isn't going to be their go-to.
And if they don't intend to abuse civil forfeiture, all this test does is establish evidence that you've taken cocaine.
If drug use is detected
They need evidence of drug related crimes. Technically, past drug *use* isn't even illegal.
It's pretty trivial to develop procedures to isolate what you might be transferring to your fingers from things you handle to what you are literally secreting from your fingers.
You linked to an article about the detection of surface cocaine; which amounts to evidence that you have handled cocaine -- and the well known miscarriage of justice where they use evidence of surface cocaine as evidence of handling cocaine, when we know that traceable amounts of cocaine is on our currency.
This however is a test that establishes whether or not you USE cocaine. A little surface cocaine on your money isn't going to have you sweating out these chemicals in any significant quantity. So your thesis that this test is going to lead them to confiscating your money doesn't really add up.
Further, this test, a chemical test showing that you've recently TAKEN cocaine ... how does that amount to evidence that the money in your wallet is from the drug trade and therefore evidence of crime and subject to confiscation? It doesn't even sort of kind of add up.
Your post:
Also to detect anyone who has any money, for confiscation of evidence of course
vs the summary
[...] by the excreted metabolites â" benzoylecgonine and methylecgonine â" resulting from abuse of the drug.
Sure. Unless simply handling money doesn't result in your body absorbing enough cocaine to synthesize and excrete " benzoylecgonine and methylecgonine".
In other words, you are probably entirely wrong.
So make a big hit work that people will be listening or reading 60 years from now.
Well I would, but copyright ter,s aren't long enough to motivate me yet. I just don't have enough incentive. Maybe if they were just bit longer, more people like me would switch to working on art. /sarcasm ;)
it would conceivably be possible for an artist to create a work when very young and outlive its copyright.
And this would be bad because?
I don't get paid again for the work i did last week, but you need to keep getting paid for something you did at 15 when you are 85 years old? Seriously? WTF?
The purpose of copyright is to provide a limited monopoly to provide incentive to create. Are you SERIOUSLY arguing there are 15 year old artists and authors that are sitting there thinking... I was going to create a new work of art today, but then i realized i wouldn't still be getting royalties in my 80s and realized I couldn't make ends meet like that, and went to work on an assembly line instead...
And therefore less art is created, and the world is poorer for it.
Really?
I use firefox with adblock on my mobile. I'm guessing your on iphone maybe?