Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
"We say very specifically that VPNs violate the terms of our service, and we believe very much so that anybody who licenses content should get paid for their content," he said. "We hear a lot in every market about this, and what we tend to find too is that, after launch, these issues drop significantly."
The reason it might still be working for many is that they are not using updated software that might be checking IP addresses internally, either innocently for other reasons, or to specifically start enforcing this policy in a limited scope.
No on can know what it's like to be someone else.
Exactly. They were born only knowing how to fit into society as a gender that conflicts with their anatomy. And they can't pretend that they are the gender that they were assigned at birth because they don't know how to be someone else. I know 3 transgender women, and from what I understand of their tales, their choices were basically suicide or gender transition because they simply could not live with the gender they were assigned based on their anatomy.
So I would be okay with Rue Paul getting a pass but to give it to just one group is wrong.
It's not wrong if the one group who's getting the exception represents the group who's unfairly burdened by the original requirement. I'm not clear whether you're supporting or against the decision, but transgender people are unfairly burdened by a requirement of using their birth name when that doesn't agree with the different name they're getting most people (hoping eventually everyone) to use in the real world.
All you said was that other evidence could be used to prove the crime and wouldn't be needed from the person accused. Well of course that gets around the 5th Amendment issue. What the hell is your point?
Almost -- I said that if other evidence proves the employer's guilt of hiring illegally, then the employer's evidence would serve only to exonerate them of charges of paying below minimum wage. ("[...] allow them to provide that evidence after their guilt [...] is determined from others' evidence as a way to reduce the consequences," I said.)
My point being that, by avoiding the potential for 5th amendment problems in this way, it looks like the idea still has merit: illegal immigrants could cry foul when they are being paid less than minimum wage because they wouldn't have to fear losing that income as part of being deported if the burden of proof of wages is on the employer and the burden of proof of employment is on the worker. And thanks to the clarification, the employer's burden of proof shouldn't incriminate them more than they already are. I don't doubt that there are other problems with the idea, but I think, with this clarification or adjustment, it can at least avoid the 5th amendment concerns you raised.
My reasons for continuing the conversation are not just about "winning" but about coming to an understanding, I can't do that without questioning your reasoning. I don't mean to sound adversarial, but that's very difficult when reacting to such agressive replies. I didn't immediately understand why you thought the employer providing evidence of wages was a 5th amendment issue, but with further discussion I came to an understanding that you thought the evidence provided by the employer would also incriminate them on their illegal employment. So that understanding helped the idea evolve.
Normally I would be up for working out other issues, but I think our styles of discourse
clash violently and I don't think I'm up for much more of this, if you'll excuse me