|
|
So it's OK for the cop to not have some understanding of the crime he is charging someone with?
No, he understands the crime he just does not know how serious it is. A reasonable DA, unless there is some other factors not mentioned, would drop the charges.
It's not the management company that's motivating this, it's the non-pet-owning tenants not wanting to be confrontational about it and demanding that the management "do something".
I doubt they will actually do this for enforcement.. It's an attention grabber instead. Here's why:
1) $60 to do the test is really expensive. A determined malefactor could financially break the system by just "seeding" the grounds with many targets. Targets composed of material from multiple sources. 2) I doubt they're using a collection system with legally enforceable traceability. Heck, law enforcement doesn't always do this right. Joe or Jane Doe groundskeeper sure isn't going to worry about it. 3) I doubt the DNA testing company is willing to certify their test results to the needed level. I have friends who have sent their dog's DNA in multiple times for breed identification and come back with different results (same saliva, same lab, etc.).
The first time an attorney with some spare time on his hands gets a "dog poop ticket", he or she will have a field day. So, Acme DNA labs, can we see your certified accuracy testing? Did you run a blank? How do you calibrate your equipment. The lab will have wisely put in their contract that they won't respond to this, so it's back to the management company and a he said/he said argument.
No management company wants to get in the middle of a tenant/tenant dispute, and they will quickly disengage and let the tenants fight it out among themselves.
Make it part of the leasing contract. If the dog is yours, you pay the test costs plus the fine.This isn't a criminal case, it's civil at best; and the standard is preponderance of evidence, not reasonable doubt. The real issue is how do you identify the actual dog? It's not like you will have a sample of each dog on file, nor will it necessarily identify a breed let alone an actual individual pet. Although going to a dog park and collecting "samples" and seeding them has a lot of humor potential. How about sample storm a zoo as well?
I know because I don't know. What I mean is, the ammount of uncertainty in BTC is much, much higher than in dollars.
Really? I actually don't know that at all. In fact the value of USD could go haywire in a lot of ways, in case you hadn't noticed the price of metals like gold and platinum has skyrocketed, meaning a lot of other people think so too.
Actually, gold is way off its Sep 11 peak (down by about a third) and trading roughly where it was a little more than 3 years ago. Anybody who bought over the last few years and held it has pretty much taken a beating. I would not be surprised to see many of the "We buy gold" places close shop as they lose money on the price drop between purchase and sale or start offering way below spot for purchases. One jeweler I know has slow chis purchase simply because he didn't want the downside risk.
***UNLESS I CAN SEE IT PLACED IN MY $$$ BANK ACCOUNT IN REAL TIME***
Which goes to show you are missing the point of using it as a currency. A real currency is something you hold onto, not exchange at first opportunity.
You hold onto a real currency because you are confident it will retain its value over time. As a result, there is no pressing need to get rid of it because what costs a dollar today will probably cost the same tomorrow. When the value of currency is uncertain, such as the hyper inflation some countries experienced or when governments limit liquidity, people generally dump the currency as fat as they can.
You only think you need to do that because you think the exchange rate of BitC against some other currency is too high. Why? Are you SURE about that? Because lots of people were saying the same thing all along, at much lower values. What if BitC doubles in value again? Then you would have been an idiot to exchange it away.
What you are describing is not a currency but an investment. People buy it because they think it will increase in value and hold on to it; not because they can use it to buy stuff. Th problem is Bitcoins are thinly traded and not very liquid. If you decide you want to dump a million dollars worth it is not as easy as putting in a market order for a stock and knowing you can sell it because market makers keep the market liquid.
As with currency, investments require a degree of trust in the system. Scams such as occurred in China or the recent thefts damage that trust and will ultimately drive people form the market, making Bitcoin even less liquid.
That's not tos ay Bitcoin can't succeed or find its niche long term; just that there are serious issues it needs to address before it will become a real, viable currency.
anonymous and secure way to conduct business
Given that you apparently know nothing about Bitcoin, you could have at least read the comment you were replying to, which already states what you should already know by now (unless, of course, you like having discussions about subjects you know nothing about):
NEWSFLASH! Bitcoin transactions are NOT anonymous (if anything, they're pseudonymous).
NEWSFLASH #2! Their (supposed) anonymity is NOT the reason why people use them (it can't be, since anonymity is NOT a property of the Bitcoin system).
mkay? cheers.
However, Bitcoins themselves are since they use a key encryption system to verify transactions. Unless you know the owner of the key you can't tie the coins to a person; unlike a bank where ownership is known and thus not anonymous. I suspect, despite your post as an AC, you don't really understand the concept of anonymity.
Bitcoin, as he alludes, is really a form of barter and not currency. Unlike currency, it is not very liquid. Having a million dollars in Bitcoin can't be converted in one fell swoop to dollars.
Maybe something didn't click in your head... Bitcoin is a currency. Dollars are just the middlemen here. If you earn Bitcoin and spend Bitcoin, where do dollars enter the picture?
No, Bitcoin is merely a tool for barter. A currency is very liquid and accepted as legal tender where it is issued. Bitcoin is neither. That doesn't mean it can't be used as a way to engage in commerce; but many things can be used the same way that are not currency.
The author doesn't seem to understand how Bitcoin works. He seems to think that some mysterious computer programmer is the "issuer" of the currency. He says that governments will "take control", without explaining any mechanism for them to do so. His grasp of economics is questionable as well. He says that governments have always controlled currency. But prior to the American Civil War, private currency circulated.
Your misrepresenting what he said. His position is not that there never was private currency; rather that publicly issued currency inevitably replace them because of greater trust in government backed money as a store of value. As for governments taking control, not stating how doesn't mean they can't or won't do it. In fact, probably the best way to "take control" is destroy users' trust in them as an anonymous and secure way to conduct business. Attack the users, not the system.
His claim that governments are better at protecting us from "monetary excess" made me laugh. Bitcoin may fail, but not because of the reasons he gives. But he hedges in his last paragraph, and says bitcoin will thrive "until the authorities do better", which means it may be around forever.
Bitcoin, as he alludes, is really a form of barter and not currency. Unlike currency, it is not very liquid. Having a million dollars in Bitcoin can't be converted in one fell swoop to dollars. You can do it in stages, but sudden redemptions of large amounts by a lot of people will cause its value to drop and probably result in a lot of people unable to swap Bitcoin for cash. People are willing to accept it because they can trade it for something of value, but there is no assurance it will have any specified value nor that any particular person will accept it. Right now, it has value because people are willing to speculate in it and some people will accept it as payment. In addition, there is nothing to stop someone from creating Bitcoin2 and offering it up; unlike a government who has a monopoly on printing real money. If people have greater trust in it then Bitcoin will fade away.
However, many CEO's are paid the really large dollars via options and stock grants so they are also owners. SO that is OK based on your statement.
No. Your point was about people who CREATED the company. At the point of giving stocks and options to employed CEOs, that is part of a rewards package, which can and should be counted as salary. Creators of the company get their ownership when the company is still worth zero, and thus isn't relevant to wage caps.
Except the Swiss proposal was 12x the lowest paid worker, not some combination of wages. The Swiss, being a sensible people, voted that down.
I don't know the details of the Swiss proposal, nor care that it was voted down. The question is whether legislation of this sort is a good idea: To limit the differential between the ordinary workers and the top execs. The implementation details are complicated and may be different from the Swiss proposal.
Since my original comment was relevant to those who got large payouts as the result of early involvement in a company, not just the founders then would you say only the persons who actually started the company, not anyone who joined later, should be fee of caps? As far as wether the idea of pay caps is a good idea, or even a workable idea, we'll just have to have differing opinions.
As for my star up example; do you really believe someone who puts all their money and time into creating a company shouldn't reap the benefits but that his or her payout should be limited based on some arbitrary number?
This isn't about owners, it's about CEOs and other execs. Owners get their rewards through their ownership of the company, in whole or part. CEOs are employees. Sometime they get shares or share options as part of their pay for being employees. But they are are CEOs not owners. Of course some times owners are CEOs. But it's not the ownership part of their rewards that is the topic of this ratio.
However, many CEO's are paid the really large dollars via options and stock grants so they are also owners. SO that is OK based on your statement.
Or they should be forced to give multi-million dollar payouts to everyone on staff?
No such forcing is being required. That would be the result of a very extraordinary minimum wage requirement, not a wage ratio. And of course in either case no normal company could end up that way. If money is redistributed from the execs to the ordinary workers, it gets split lots of ways, and will result in a reasonable rise, not the fantasy sized ones you suggest.
Except the Swiss proposal was 12x the lowest paid worker, not some combination of wages. The Swiss, being a sensible people, voted that down.
You're really not equating racial discrimination with CEO pay?
It's a ratio. It's not just about the highest paid, it's about the lowest paid. It's about the mix of salaries, and how it shouldn't unreasonably mostly go to those that are already in the top 1%.
However, that point wasn't about the equivalence of discrimination and pay disparity. Simply that the possibility of loopholes isn't a reason for not going ahead with otherwise good legislation.
So now you have to cover every loophole?
Huh? That doesn't follow at all.
How about startups that give huge stock options to some employees but not others? Should that be capped as well? Why should an owner / CEO get such a huge payday when the janitor gets a straight salary?
Why indeed?
How about a company that outsources manufacturing? Should all the salaries be capped since many regular wage owners could make significantly more than the lowest paid factory workers at an outsourced plant. How is that different form hiring a cleaning service?
These are issues that would have to be addressed when drafting a law. Few laws can be written on the back of a postage stamp.
Do you really think a company that would do that cares about the backlash?
There's plenty of companies that care about the backlash.
Rather than rely line by line here are my thoughts:
1. While the intent may be good it simply wouldn't be a good law because it is simply unworkable.Even the Swiss realized it was a bad idea and voted it down.
2. As for my star up example; do you really believe someone who puts all their money and time into creating a company shouldn't reap the benefits but that his or her payout should be limited based on some arbitrary number? Or they should be forced to give multi-million dollar payouts to everyone on staff?
The problem with such a law, while well intentioned would simply lead to people finding various ways around it and or simply reducing in house staff to avoid low limits. Quite frankly, even though I think some of the current way CEO pay is structured is counter productive I am not opposed to large CEO payouts.
Have to disagree. You can run MacOS on non-Apple hardware, and both Dell and HP laptops are crap.
Run, and run well, is two different things. Sure you can create a Hackintosh but expecting it to work just like a Mac without any issues and to be simple to update to the latest OS version and just have it work is not yet the case.
***cough*** Hackintosh ***cough***
While it is absolution it really isn't a mainstream solution; but rather as the name implies a hacker's toy.
In addition, it would make outsourcing lower end employees an attractive option.
If we didn't go ahead because of some predictable loopholes, then racial and sexual discrimination laws would never have happened either. And they have done a lot of good.
You're really not equating racial discrimination with CEO pay?
First of all the law would have to be drafted to deal with this potential loophole. For example, companies need cleaners and security staff, and they tend to be the lowest earners. It's not that hard to survey the people who are doing the cleaning and security at the company, even if they are employed indirectly via outsourcing.
So now you have to cover every loophole? How about startups that give huge stock options to some employees but not others? Should that be capped as well? Why should an owner / CEO get such a huge payday when the janitor gets a straight salary?
How about a company that outsources manufacturing? Should all the salaries be capped since many regular wage owners could make significantly more than the lowest paid factory workers at an outsourced plant. How is that different form hiring a cleaning service?
Secondly, companies can't do outsourcing of existing jobs in secret. And there are plenty of activist organisations that would be only to happy to out the behaviour. Organisations like Occupy Wall Street. Even if the CEO got away with some loophole legally, he and his company would still suffer the bad press as cheating their lowest paid workers.
Do you really think a company that would do that cares about the backlash?
Interestingly enough, the Swiss voted the law down.
It's fabulous! We haven't seen anything like it in the last half an hour! -- Macy's