darkoshi | Entries tagged with laws

ChatGPT achieves the pinnacle of human intelligence, laziness, and developers are baffled (2023/12/12)

This AI can pick up passwords from the sound of your keystrokes (2023/12/10)
This is something I've been slightly concerned about for some time already. From that article, it doesn't sound very advanced yet - the AI needs to be trained on each specific keyboard's sounds first. But I am sure they will get better at it over time, so as not to need that initial training in the future. And I bet some government security agencies have more advanced versions like that already.

Utah Supreme Court says suspects can refuse to hand over phone passwords to the police. Other state Supreme Courts disagree and the case would wind up before the US Supreme Court (2023/12/16)
The state Supreme Court also noted that the case raises important questions about how the Fifth Amendment extends to law enforcement efforts to unlock smartphones. The justices noted, as an example, law enforcement obtaining an order to compel a suspect to provide an unlocked device, thus circumventing the necessity of having them disclose the password.

With the Valdez case, the police asked him to verbally provide his password and did not get an order to compel him to unlock the device. ...

I got an email today urging me to contact my representatives about a bill that would outlaw nearly all abortions in the state. So looked up the status of the bill, and was a bit confused.

SC Senate defeats proposal that would have banned all abortions - May 2, 2018 07:57AM

SC Senate votes to outlaw virtually all abortions in South Carolina May 2, 2018 11:16PM

Senate Democrats try last-minute filibuster to block SC abortion ban - May 3, 2018 08:30PM

The last one says "The GOP leaders of the S.C. House on Thursday pledged to reject a Republican-backed state Senate proposal that would ban virtually all abortions in South Carolina."
Which is good... but actually, I don't trust them to keep that pledge.

So which is true?

How To Order Your Own Blood Tests : You do not need a doctor to order blood tests for you. Several Internet companies offer routine blood tests that you can order yourself.

Genova Diagnostics : Only healthcare providers licensed in their state may order laboratory testing.

Quest Diagnostics : Because of regulations in every state except Arizona, patients must have their doctor request lab tests. To get tested, you’ll need to contact your doctor and find out your options for getting a lab order through him or her.

LifeExtension.com : Life Extension/National Diagnostics, Inc. contracts with physicians who will order your tests, but will not diagnose or treat you. It is highly recommended that you show your physician or healthcare professional your blood test results.

I suppose that last one explains it. But how can I know if the results I would get from ordering a test myself from those online companies would be as reliable as the results if I had a doctor to order it for me?

First big policy win for gay rights in the US after same-sex marriage

The federal commission that investigates these claims has ruled that discriminating against lesbian, gay, and bisexual employees for their sexual orientation counts as discrimination on the basis of sex, which is prohibited nationwide in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
...
It’s very simply stated: “‘Sexual orientation’ as a concept cannot be defined or understood without reference to sex. … It follows, then, that sexual orientation is inseparable from and inescapably linked to sex and therefore, that allegations of sexual orientation discrimination involve sex-based considerations.”
...
The ruling doesn’t hold the legal weight of a Supreme Court decision, but it applies to federal employees, and federal courts that receive discrimination complaints can use it as a form of precedent.

Crossposts: http://darkoshi.livejournal.com/619409.html

American healthcare was already socialized by Reagan, we’re just fighting about how to pay for it - somewhat misleading title, but interesting. Till now, I wasn't sure what the laws were regarding whether hospitals can refuse to provide treatment or not.

The Law That Changed Everything—and It Isn't the One You Think - more info on EMTALA

Wikipedia entry on EMTALA

Crossposts: http://darkoshi.livejournal.com/534129.html

Hmmm. I thought that Silk used to make a different kind of soy yoghurt, and a bit of web searching shows that I was right. It was called "Silk Live!". But the "Silk Live!" yoghurt isn't even mentioned on the Silk website now. They must not be making it anymore.

I've noticed fewer soy yoghurts of any kind in the grocery stores lately, and thought that the stores were simply discontinuing them. There have also been new almond, rice, and coconut-based products for sale, which I thought were perhaps displacing some of the prior soy-based ones. (Taste-wise, I generally prefer the soy ones.)

However, this surprising post: Soy Yogurt-Disappearing Everywhere??? says:

I heard that the dairy industry successfully lobbied to make it illegal to use the word "yogurt" on any non-dairy product. Supposedly this went through at the end of last year. This makes sense to me since that is when all soy yogurts disappeared, down here.

Could that be true?

An article (European Dairy Association (EDA) welcomes ruling on ‘misleading’ soy yoghurt) from June 2012 indicates that in the Netherlands (or all of Europe?), soy-based yoghurt can no longer be marketed as "yoghurt". It seems that it can only be marketed as "a plant based yoghurt variation". The end of the article states:

Earlier this year, three US Senators voiced their concerns regarding the "misuse" of dairy terms by the food industry and urged the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to increase its enforcement of regulations to prevent the "imitation" of standardised dairy products.

A webpage (Imitation Dairy Products) from the National Milk Producers Federation indicates that they have complained to the FDA about non-dairy products being marketed using terms such as "soy milk" and "rice yogurt".

An article from Feb 11, 2013 (Western United Dairymen Challenges FDA on Misuse of the Name 'Yogurt') indicates that WUD has complained to the FDA about the use of the terms "milk" and "yogurt" on non-cow-based products:

WUD reminded the FDA that any product that uses the term "milk" as part of the name on its label must conform to the federal standard of identity described as "the lacteal secretion, practically free from colostrum obtained by the complete milking of one or more healthy cows."

"The regulation is clear and does not equivocate: Milk does not come from beans, rice, nuts or anything else–it comes from cows," WUD says. "By using words such as ‘soy milk’ and ‘yogurt’ in the labeling of this soy-based product, consumers are doubtlessly misled to believe that it is a product comparable to the nutritional profile and benefits of milk."

Apparently, they think that non-vegans can easily be fooled into thinking that soy milk comes from cows. Based on what they write, goat milk couldn't even be marketed as such, as it doesn't come from cows.

Based on the date of that article, it seems unlikely that the FDA has ruled on the issue lately.

It is true however, that grocery stores now often place dairy and non-dairy products side-by-side on the shelves. In the past, they tended to be kept in completely separate sections of the stores. Sometimes now, I even have to do a double-take to make sure that I'm not accidentally pulling a carton of dairy milk from the shelf rather than a carton of soy milk.

This letter sent to the FDA by the Soyfoods Association of North America in the year 2000 states:

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDC Act) states that a food shall be deemed to be “misbranded” (illegal) if it “purports to be” or is “represented as” a food for which a definition and standard of identity has been prescribed by FDA and fails to conform to the definition and standard. 21 U.S.C. $ 343(g). “Soymilk,” however, does not “purport to be” and is not “represented as” ordinary “milk” (unqualified); indeed, use of the term “soy” proclaims that the product is not bovine in nature. Use of the term “soymilk” does not violate the definition and standard of identity for “milk” or the relevant section of the FDC Act.

It is interesting however, that Silk's new product is labeled a "dairy-free yogurt alternative", while their old product was labeled "soy yogurt".

Ah! The first link in this post mentions that Silk is owned by Dean Foods. The article about the European Dairy Association says that the Dutch ruling was against "Alpro, which is a business segment of US-based dairy giant Dean Foods".

Crossposts: http://darkoshi.livejournal.com/507125.html

For my new used car, I've decided that a hatchback would be good, in terms of having a nice compact car with good cargo space.

I've been checking the specs for all the hatchback models I could find which are about 3 years old.

Regarding the 2009 Pontiac G3, yesterday I read "In other words, the G3 is an Aveo5 hatchback by another name -- and at a higher price". So I quickly knocked the G3 off my list, as the Chevrolet Aveo was also on it.

Today, I found out that the Toyota Matrix* and the Pontiac Vibe are pretty much the same, too. From Wikipedia: "Identical mechanically, and nearly as much internally, the Matrix and Vibe are clothed in different sheetmetal designed by their respective brands."

Comparing the photos from Edmunds.com, they are indeed very similar. Can you spot the differences?
The 2010 Pontiac Vibe is in the top photo of each set; the 2010 Toyota Matrix is below:

The last set of photos demonstrates an issue with the headrests (aka "head restraints") which I'm very concerned about.

For the front passenger seat, do you notice how the headrest in the bottom photo looks fairly straight & comfortable, whereas the one in the top photo looks like it would push your head slightly forward? This difference is due to the seats being leaned back a different amount in each photo.

The little cartoon on this page also demonstrates the issue.

An NHTSA regulation was passed some years ago which mandated new headrest designs for all cars manufactured after 2008. It details the maximum distance that the headrest is allowed to be behind the driver's head. As (supposedly) most drivers lean their seat back, the headrests are designed with that in mind.

Personally, I like my seat to be in a fairly upright position when I drive. That's more comfortable for me, and I see better that way. So now I'm worried that I won't find any car which will feel comfortable. There are many complaints to be found on the web where other people mention these kinds of headrests being uncomfortable for them too.

The issue was even mentioned in the above regulation document: "In opposition, a majority of the manufacturers ... suggested that vehicle occupants would prefer a head restraint backset of more than 50 mm. Specifically, they maintained that smaller female occupants tend to utilize steeper seat back angles. According to these commenters, a backset of 50 mm may cause significant intrusions into the space where these occupants typically place their heads, forcing their heads into an unnatural forward-tilting position.

Based on [UMTRI's] research, a 50 mm backset would result in head restraint interference for 13 percent of the driving public. The head restraint would actually come in contact with the hair of approximately 33 percent of drivers, assuming a hair margin of 25 mm. ... the individuals who preferred seat back angles more upright than 25 degrees (usually small stature people) were most likely to be subject to the head restraint interference. UMTRI estimated that with current seat designs, a backset of 91 mm would accommodate the preferred head positions of 99 percent of the population and a 70 mm maximum backset would accommodate all but a small percentage of the population.

But then the document goes on to state:
We concluded that comfort-related issues are not insurmountable in front seats because front seat backs can be adjusted to alleviate discomfort.
...we have decided to increase the maximum allowable backset to 55 mm, with the seat back positioned at an angle that gives the HRMD a torso reference line angle of 25 degrees.

Sigh.

Some cars have headrests which can be tilted forward and back. But from what I've read, those don't necessarily help, as they are mainly designed to tilt *even more* forward, rather than to give your head more space behind it.

*Just in case anyone wonders, I did hear the news that Toyota has issued a recall of Matrix vehicles due to an airbag issue - but that's only for older models.

Crossposts: http://darkoshi.livejournal.com/503629.html

What exactly is Obamacare and what did it change?

Crossposts: http://darkoshi.livejournal.com/474053.html

For my own future reference, in case I plan to drop off any scrap metal at a recycler:

SC Copper Theft Law Puts New Requirements on Recyclers

...they agreed to allow homeowners and anyone else who doesn't recycle very often to get a temporary permit by phone by calling the sheriff's office. The temporary permit will be good for 48 hours. Instead of showing a permit, those recyclers will just have to provide the temporary permit number issued by the sheriff's office.

I think this is a good thing, if it really helps to reduce thefts and vandalism.

One of the houses I was looking at with Forestfen had an odd looking black contraption in the back yard next to the house, near a metal pipe coming out of the ground with wires sticking out of it. At the time, I simply wondered what that odd thing was. Later, I realized that there hadn't been any sign of a heat pump or A/C unit near the house, and that what I had seen were the remains of one. The black thing was the compressor unit.

Crossposts: http://darkoshi.livejournal.com/464360.html

A few South Carolina marriage laws...

No man shall marry his mother, grandmother, daughter, granddaughter, stepmother, sister, grandfather's wife, son's wife, grandson's wife, wife's mother, wife's grandmother, wife's daughter, wife's granddaughter, brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister, mother's sister, or another man.

No woman shall marry her father, grandfather, son, grandson, stepfather, brother, grandmother's husband, daughter's husband, granddaughter's husband, husband's father, husband's grandfather, husband's son, husband's grandson, brother's son, sister's son, father's brother, mother's brother, or another woman.

(Are other states so specific?)
(If your son dies, is your son's wife still considered his wife?)
(If your son was secretly married, but then died, and you subsequently unknowingly married his former wife, it would apparently be illegal?)
(What about half-brothers and half-sisters?)

..

SECTION 20-1-210. License required for marriage.
It shall be unlawful for any persons to contract matrimony within this State without first procuring a license as is herein provided and it shall likewise be unlawful for anyone whomsoever to perform the marriage ceremony for any such persons unless such persons shall first have delivered to the party performing such marriage ceremony a license as is herein provided duly authorizing such persons to contract matrimony. Any officer or person performing the marriage ceremony without the production of such license shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars nor less than twenty-five dollars or by imprisonment for not more than thirty days nor less than ten days.

SECTION 20-1-360. Effect of article on marriage without license.
Nothing contained in this article shall render illegal any marriage contracted without the issuance of a license.

So... It is illegal to get married without a license, and it's illegal to perform a marriage ceremony without a license, but the resulting marriage itself could still be legal? (as long as nothing in the other sections renders it illegal).

It surprises me that it is apparently illegal to get married in a private ceremony without state involvement. I thought that such a marriage was allowed, but that it would simply not be recognized by the state. But apparently even the act of getting married without state involvement (ie. without a state-issued license) is illegal.
But what exactly defines "marriage" and a "marriage ceremony"? If you call it something else, like a "wedding" or a "hand-fasting", or a "life-long commitment", does that make it legal?

..

Fuck marriage and fuck laws. If I were to choose to get married to someone in a private or public ceremony, and/or in a religious ceremony (if I were religious), I sure as hell don't think the state has any right to say that it's illegal to do so.

So, it's not only that gay marriage is not recognized as valid under the law; it's actually illegal? You could theoretically get put in jail for having married someone by means of a non-legally sanctioned ceremony?

I supposed it shouldn't be surprising. Apparently the purpose of marriage is for sex, and there have been plenty of laws which made sex between various kinds of people illegal. So it follows that there would also be laws making marriage between various kinds of people illegal too.

Last Friday, after Qiao and me had been shooting some pool in a pool hall, Qiao commented that he had been disturbed to see a few children there. One had been a small child who was obviously only there because the parent was. Another few persons had looked to be of teenage years, and were shooting pool together.

My own first experiences with playing pool had been when I was a child, in vacation hotels and possibly in a few German restaurants. So it seemed an odd idea that there might be laws here in the U.S. against kids being in a place where pool/billiards was played.

Qiao said that most pool halls were like bars and served alcohol. The one we were in wasn't very bar-like, but apparently does have beer available. I can understand it if kids aren't allowed in bars, because a bar's main purpose is to sell alcohol, and kids are not allowed to have alcohol. But it still seems strange to ban kids from being in a pool hall, where the main purpose is pool, not alcohol. What is wrong with a kid playing pool? Unless perhaps, they are gambling, but in that case it should be the gambling that is disallowed, not the playing of pool.

Anyway, so I looked up what the laws are here in South Carolina, and found this:

SECTION 63-19-2420. Loitering in a billiard room.
It is unlawful for a person under eighteen years of age to loiter in a billiard or pocket billiard room or to play billiards or pocket billiards in a billiard room unless accompanied by the person's parent or guardian or with the written consent of the person's parent or guardian.

I *also* found this:

SECTION 63-19-2430. Playing pinball.
It is unlawful for a minor under the age of eighteen to play a pinball machine.

Eh?? In my growing-up experience, only *kids* played pinball! To me, pinball is a kids' game. But there's a SC law still on the books that forbids kids from playing pinball here.

So then I googled about that, and found this interesting old article from 1942. Apparently way back then, pinball games were a topic of dispute. San Diego even banned them entirely, after "a delegation of all the ministers of the city churches" paid a visit to the county council.

Juke boxes were a topic of dispute back then too. But apparently that was due to concerns that it would hurt musicians' livelihood.
"...union musicians [were barred] from making radio transcriptions, juke box records, and commercial recordings not for home use.
In the nationwide controversy that followed, union spokesmen argued their action was a case of self-preservation; the canned music actually tended to destroy the musicians' livelihood. Against this, radio spokesmen and others, including the government, contended that the ban resembled a monopoly and threatened to put many small radio stations and other businesses out of existence."

That entire periodical ("The Billboard - The World's Foremost Amusement Weekly") seems fascinating to me; to read about how things were like back in 1942.

This page lets you search SC laws and regulations.

Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional

Well, I'm pleased by that, but the ruling is only based on the words "under God" being in the pledge. If the ruling stands, they'll probably just rephrase it. I, on the other hand, have always been against the idea of being coerced into pledging allegiance to anything or anyone in the first place. The law says children have to go to school, but why should that mean they should have to pledge allegiance to this country? I'll choose who or what is worthy of my allegiance on my own, thank you very much, even when I'm not yet a legal adult. If I remember right, I usually chose to remain silent during the recitation. I found it especially silly to pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth. And knowing American history, the part about "with liberty and justice for all" was rather ironic.