Slashdot Mirror

I live in Boston. So, yes, we had a "tiger" attack recently that killed 3 people and injured 250+, you insensitive clod. (N.B. I am not saying we need stronger counter-terrorism, I am just saying that terrorists are not purely imaginary.) I am sure the people of Iraq, Pakistan, India, and Yemen believe in terrorists as well.

stenvar says:

So, it's educated middle class people in the city protesting that politicians aren't giving them stuff cheaper and that politicians are wasting their money.

If you had done some proper research, you would have discovered that the "middle class" did not support the protest, it started off peacefully and only gained traction after abusive police crackdowns.

The marches began this month with a small protest in Sao Paulo against a small increase in bus and subway fares. The demonstrations initially drew the scorn of many middle-class Brazilians after protesters vandalized storefronts, subway stations and buses on one of the city's main avenues. But the movement quickly gained support and spread to other cities as police used heavy-handed tactics to try to quell the demonstrations. The biggest crackdown happened on Thursday in Sao Paulo when police fired rubber bullets and tear gas in clashes that injured more than 100 people, including 15 journalists, some of whom said they were deliberately targeted.

There's even a eyewitness report, together with pictures and videos of the police brutality by the poster "Canslli" here .

But the problem, again, was the government and it's police. They cowardly shot tear gas and rubber bullets on people who were peacefully protesting or just passing by (many reporters say that the police shot first, creating chaos)...

A journalist from Folha de São Paulo was hit in the eye by a rubber bullet while she was sitting on a sidewalk talking with some other journalists...

A lady who was just passing by, also hit by rubber bullets...

Protesters surrendering to the police, only to be shot after...

A homeless boy, that lives on one of the streets engulfed in chaos, was shot in the leg by a rubber bullet. Some people took him to a drugstore to receive treatment...

Here is a video of some people who were chanting "No Violence!" until the cops shot rubber bullets at them...

So while you sit safely at home smugly spinning lies to support your ideological war against the left, understand that there are real people with real issues who are bleeding and dying in the riots. At least respect that.

Assume one pays for a genuine fashion item but is delivered a good counterfeit (only an expert could tell the difference): is the buyer to be held liable for that?

Believe it or not I read about a similar law being proposed in New York City.

I see a bigger problem in the form of evidence being kept secret and used against someone in a trial. That's a bigger risk, as at that point we may as well employ the Star Chamber for "terrorism".

It is problematic for trials and other court proceedings. I have seen cases reported in which a defense attorney was given a security clearance to review the evidence and work the issues it creates. Of course that attorney is limited in what he or she can tell the defendant. And not every attorney is trustworthy in handing national security related matters.

Conviction of disbarred lawyer Lynne Stewart upheld for smuggling messages to jailed terrorist

It would be way better if al Qaida would simply stop attacking, but I guess there is little chance of that happening.

Oh - I suddenly believe the new story.

"The statement that a single analyst can eavesdrop on domestic communications without proper legal authorization is incorrect and was not briefed to Congress,"

What does "proper legal authorization" mean? Weasel words... you're right about propaganda. You're wrong about making it partisan... both parties are complicit in this.

I still believe the NSA is wiretapping at will without warrants specifically identifying individuals and cause. Even seizing just metadata is wrong.

We see the same thing over and over - some whistleblower reveals evidence, the claim is denied. But the evidence is still there. They've already started demonizing Snowden:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/06/edward-snowden-nsa-leaker-is-no-hero.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/dick-cheney-blasts-nsa-leaker-edward-snowden-traitor-chinese-spy-article-1.1374229

They even got to his dad:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/17/exclusive-father-edward-snowden-urges-son-to-stop-leaking-come-home/

The FBI would consider it rape

“penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

Source

Sometimes the police do recover stolen phones:

"High-tech" method:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/04/nyregion/crime-scene-chasing-down-a-gps-blip-to-a-stolen-iphone.html

"Low-tech" method:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/apple-ring-stemmed-nypd-busts-iphone-thieves-article-1.1359534

Who watches the watchers?

Congress is supposed to watch the watchers. The voters are supposed to watch Congress.

Emphasis on "supposed to," both instances: The only thing those in Congress are watching are their account balances and poll numbers. The only thing (most) voters are watching are their televisions*.

* I haven't looked up them up, but I doubt C-SPAN's numbers are "up there." (Further, it's been my observation that even when C-SPAN is airing unfiltered, uninterrupted, and otherwise uncontaminated coverage of a high-profile government event, many (if not most) people still opt for the distorted version of events offered by CNN, Fox, MSNBC, et al.)

Watching TV does not require focus. It is the opposite. Folks who watch TV call it, "zoning out". You cannot zone out while reading a book. And, if you zoned out, staring at a picture of a sunset for 3-5 hours a day, nobody would consider that healthy and normal-- you might even be compelled to seek professional help.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/americans-spend-34-hours-week-watching-tv-nielsen-numbers-article-1.1162285

These machines not only provide, supposedly, security for our air travelers but they also provide fun and entertainment
for the TSA employees as well.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/06/tsa-worker-arrested-jokes-fight-size-genitalia/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/woman-body-scanned-times-tsa-dallas-airport-cute-figure-article-1.1022803

http://www.infowars.com/ex-tsa-screener-officers-laughing-at-your-naked-image/

We all knew this kind of stuff would happen and it has and let's not forget the guy who really pushed these forward
was at one time in charge of the DHS, Chertoff, represented rapidscan... http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/airport-scanner-scam

This whole excercise will be looked back upon with two possible outcomes: Rational beings will once again govern and they'll be looked upon as an assault on civil liberties or The status quo will be maintained into the future and you won't be able to go anywhere, be online and transact any business anywhere without at least 20 or thirty government snoops tracking your every movement. Frankly the way things are going, the latter is probably the outcome we'll all be living with shortly.

No, but the governments are preparing a full frontal assault on all market participants that are NOT selling GMOs.

That's what the bills are that are supposed to force food sellers to 'clearly label' their products as GMO or not, all that nonsense.

It's nonsense because nobody CAN legitimately state that their food absolutely does not contain ANY GMO material. How can you say that? How can anybody say that?

The best one can do is say that he TRIES to keep GMOs out, but from point of view of gov't and legislation and lawsuits this is not going to fly, so it will cause even more distortion and destruction of the competition in the food market and will promote more monopolisation, and it's all in the hands of governments.

I guess what I'm saying is: It's your parenting that's at fault, not the internet. No, really, it is, and I don't care what bullshit legal argument you care to make. If you have a crappy kid, it's very like to be a sign that you're a crappy parent. Deal with it, and stop ruining everyone else's lives with goverment regulation because you decided to breed but lacked the mental capacity to do any of the work that comes after your 15 seconds of joy.

What a terribly shallow view to have.
Day of scheduled suicide: February 8th 2013, my birthday

Brocklebank said Noah's school gave her a bullying incident form to fill out, organized meetings between her son and his bullies, and asked the boys that were picking on him to sign contracts pledging to stop.

Still, she said, the harassment continued and she wanted authorities to do more. For example, Brocklebank said, Noah sat alone in the cafeteria for two months and often skipped lunch.

The situation came to a head when Noah, who only recently received his parents' permission to open an Instagram account, uploaded the pictures showing tiny cuts on his arm and a caption with his suicide threat on Jan. 26. He blocked his mother from seeing the post.

While her son was in the hospital on a psych hold,
she had this website created for him: http://lettersfornoah.com/about-noah.html

I realize you're still a girl in training, but sooner or later you're going to have to learn that the world isn't so nearly as black and white as you've made it out to be.
Or maybe you'll write a letter to Noah and explain to him that his depression and isolation is all his parents' fault.
Your choice.

There are no maintenance Bays that can accommodate an entire railway systems trains.

Look how many and how long. (And that's just a small part of the fleet).

New York City has an equally large problem and its only one city.

This would be the same type of ultra-far right nutjob (Seriously, "The Illuminati caused 9/11?" Get bent.)

Remember when the notion that something called the "trilateral commission" made up of a bunch of wealthy and famous people were making many of the decisions that guided our lives for us was just a bullshit conspiracy? Now you can look it up on Wikipedia, and see a bibliography full of references. Out of curiosity, how do you explain the immediate removal of the debris from the site before any review could occur?

No, I don't remember that notion, because I don't spare brain cycles on loony crackpot bullshit that was debunked literally decades ago.

Nor do I have an explanation for the "immediate removal of the debris from the site" because IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Why would I bother researching explanations for situations that exist only in the paranoid delusions of a bunch of ignorant America-hating clowns?

But don't let me interrupt your frothy conspiracy theory filled rant.

Doesn't even have to be all of $100.

Drug offences are not "ordinary criminal offences". Assault, fraud, and theft are ordinary criminal offenses. Drug prohibition is simply oppressive.

I think the number of countries without some sort of limitation, whether substance, quantity, purity, purpose, or other, is going to be very small. If you want to talk about minor edge cases, as marijuana, that is one thing, heroin is another.

Most of those in Guantanamo are known not to pose a threat, and about a third of them are known to be entirely innocent.

Guantanamo is pretty much down to the hardcore cases now. Of the "innocents" that were outright released, instead of transferred to prison in another country, at least 27% have been found back on the battlefield engaging in Jihad. Several of those released have engaged in infamous attacks.

Which is a war crime. When are the prosecutions going to start?

It could be a war crime . . . if they were protected persons. Unfortunately Al Qaida has made the commission of war crimes a focus of their strategy and thereby forfeits the conventions protections. (Where the "unlawful combatant" classification comes from.) The US has been gracious enough to treat them largely in accordance with the convention nonetheless. Now if this was the 1940s, and it was German soldiers we were talking about, or the 1950s and Korean soldiers, it would be illegal and the two of us would hold the same position.

"On the battlefield"? How about "attending a wedding party [wikipedia.org]"?

That would fall under the "theater of war" following the "battlefield or" part.

But, wedding parties are an interesting topic. It is an unfortunate fact of life that during armed conflict mistakes will occur, and attacks that shouldn't happen, do happen. To the best of my knowledge the NATO forces compensate victims and their families for mistaken attacks in the customary Afghan way. They also try to learn from the mistake and try to not repeat it. On the other hand, the Taliban propagandists aren't shy about accusing NATO forces of attacking "wedding parties" that consist of solely Taliban fighters. Of course, they have their own problems with weddings.

ISAF Discusses Insurgent Propaganda Messaging

“Their spokesmen do not hold themselves to a truth standard,” the official said. “Common Taliban propaganda practices are to fabricate or inflate damage estimates and deflect blame away from their fighters for civilian causalities.”

As an example, the official cited a June suicide bomb attack on a wedding party in Kandahar Province which killed over 35 Afghans and injured more than 70. Following the event, Taliban spokesmen claimed area was bombarded by coalition forces. Evidence from an investigation into the event, including ball bearings found in the victims’ bodies, proved the Taliban spokesperson’s claim false.

17 Afghans beheaded by the Taliban because they danced at a party

KABUL, Afghanistan - Insurgents beheaded 17 civilians in a Taliban-controlled area of southern Afghanistan, apparently because they attended a dance party that flouted the extreme brand of Islam embraced by the militants, officials said Monday.. . .

The victims were part of a large group that had gathered late Sunday in Helmand province's Musa Qala district for a celebration involving music and dancing, said district government chief Neyamatullah Khan. He said the Taliban slaughtered them to show their disapproval of the event. . . .

And I didn't see any tanks, unless you were watching something I wasn't. What the hell good would they be? You gonna shoot a guy with a tank cannon?

Well, maybe 'tanks' is a bit strong of a word for some, but just because they didn't have cannons doesn't mean there wasn't a lot of armor on hand.

When will the first accidental shooting occur with a printed gun?

When will the first child be killed with a printed gun?

When will the first suicide occur with a printed gun?

When will the first robbery occur with a printed gun?

When will the first car jacking occur with a printed gun?

When will the first plane hijack attempt occur with a printed gun?

These are the real world events that no-one in the pro-gun world is willing to acknowledge. It's not a case of if these will happen, but when.

Guns don't make the person carrying one any safer. Remember Christopher Dorner, the rogue cop in LA? He killed two police officers and wounded three others. These were armed trained professionals and they were knew ahead of time that they were the targets. They weren't stupid, they followed protocol, and they all got shot.

Even if you have a gun, if someone gets the drop on you then you are at their mercy. If you think otherwise you're stupid. Rambo, Chuck Norris, John Wayne, James Bond, etc. are people in movies. That's not the real world. Your chances of pulling out your gun and saving the day are something like your chance of being hit by lighting. Saying that you need guns to be safe is a mark of mental instability. As long as you are within shooting range of a gun you are less safe then you would be otherwise. It's simple physics.

I think the first person to be wounded by a printed gun will be in an accidental shooting. This will happen relatively often, because a lot of untrained people will decide to do this with new cheap 3D printers. I also expect there will be a disproportionate number of shootings involving children, because printed guns will seem like toy guns to them, or they will make a mistake. But hey, as long as you have your little penis substitute to make you feel all manly and tough, why should you care?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/01/us/kentucky-accidential-shooting

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/3-year-old-accidentally-shoots-dad-death-family-watches-tv-article-1.1116267

There is an abundance of bad statistics out to prove cell phones are more dangerous than they really are. They go out of their way to use bad logic and mix data that doesn't apply. And by and large, they get believed and repeated. But you asked for a citation about what I've posted...

Here's one.

Are their numbers inflated? I'm guessing that they are... but so are the cell phone statistics.

The Rodney King beating was taped with a video camera you could not have fit in a shoebox. Now, of course, you can do decent video with a camera you can hide in your hand.

There are certain minima to the light-collecting-spot enforced by the laws of optics, of course, but it seems clear that the police will soon not be able to tell whether they are being video'd or just watched. Glasses? They'll look like shirt buttons. And folks who know in advance the location of the police action (say, protestors) will be able to carpet an area with cameras that are very hard to spot.

A lot of cameras will just be running all the time, pointing in four directions from every bicycle helmet and car, for use in accident investigations. Anything that happens in front of any place of business will be on the private anti-theft video cameras of the business - this is all already true, but in a decade or so, it won't be a few businesses, a few cars, a few cyclists, it'll routinely be everybody.

A certain amount of the "war on photography" is about police pushing back against people *visibly* trying to intimidate them by sticking cameras in their faces; police do NOT like to be in any position but domineering control of a volatile situation - a big part of their training - so they push back hard when pushed, challenged, mocked in any way. Obeying the law is secondary to Controlling The Situation. (I have some sympathy there; it's basic human psychology that this keeps them safer; never back down before a crowd.) But people invisibly photographing them - well, what are they going to do, arrest everybody in sight of any stop-and-frisk and demand they all be subjected to some kind of wanding that will find all six cameras about their person? Police routinely get away with high-handed, illegal behaviour with one or two people who get in their face, but there are limits.

Nope, I think its a lost cause. Anything that happens in public sight will presumably be recorded, multiple times, more or less *automatically*, in a matter of years.

Thats the culprit. A bad meme that goes deep into our culture. Somewhat (tales, histories, songs, movies that we learn since childhood) we expect that the people that behave well get successful, and the evil ones get punished. But when is becoming too evident that it don't happen at all (bankers, corporations, and politicians in general, get richer, or even get honored for what they did), you only hope against depression is to believe that they will go to hell as they will never be punished here.

I'm all for police being able to catch criminals better.

We already have an order of magnitude more prisoners than any country on this entire planet. Do you really want to worsen this situation?

the proper course of action then is to try to get those laws eradicated or at least made to be universally ignored

You are contradicting yourself. How can a law be universally ignored if the police are better able to catch criminals? That is the whole point here: we want to ensure that some laws are unenforceable, because those laws are unjust; therefore, we need to ensure that the power of the police to enforce the law is limited. Every time we broaden the power of the police, we broaden the scope of enforceable law.

Anyone who lived in Southern California for the 2 decades following the Reagan Amnesty can attest to the fact that more immigration is good for the environment generally. That's why the Sierra Club banned all debate about immigration after receiving hundred million dollars or so from a donor who told them to STFU about immigration and the environment.

Yeah, right. Just ask this guy about it.

Yea, but you've got Cable Cars, Fog and an enchanting elf sized door

You didn't read the whole article.

Late last year in Queensland, an 18 month old child died after ingesting 12 small magnets.

And that's not the only case by a long shot.

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/3-year-old-girl-dies-swallowing-37-buckyball-magnets-article-1.1032839

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5548a3.htm

Kitchen knives and chemicals have other legitimate uses. These magnets are toys with no functional value. Nothing of value is lost by banning them.

Stop blaming Obama for everything.

He inherited this mess and is doing the best he can, with Congress tying his hands.

Obama doesn't personally OK everything the Department of Justice does, he doesn't have the time to do that!

His time is spend trying to fix this country despite a Congress which is trying to block him for almost everything he is trying to accomplish, often due to hateful reasons that have no place in civilized society.

Obama has done a LOT to make gov't more accessible (White House Android app, We The People petitions, etc). Stop bashing Obama, remember Clinton signed the DMCA and Bush the 2nd signed the Patriot Act, etc, etc.

So many hours of rebuttal required there, Frank. Let's choose just one.

President Obama, Congress passes bill to extend Patriot Act despite Sen. Rand Paul delay

Obama Signs Last-Minute Patriot Act Extension

Obama Takes Wrong Turn on Civil Liberties, Adopting Worse Patriot Act Stance Than GOP

But in the administration's defense, I'm sure you got your Obama phone, Frank.

...no, no -- that's not how it's going to be "picked up".

Let's take a look:

NBC News: Particle confirmed as Higgs boson

Associated Press: Physicists say they have found a Higgs boson

Reuters: Strong signs Higgs boson has been found: CERN

Wall Street Journal: New Data Boosts Case for Higgs Boson Find

FOX News: Physicists say they have found long-sought Higgs boson

Washington Post: A closer look at the Higgs boson particle that helps explain what gives matter size and shape

Chicago Tribune: Strong signs Higgs boson has been found: CERN

Sky News: Higgs Boson: Experts Sure Of 'God Particle'

New York Daily News: Physicists say they have discovered crucial subatomic particle known as Higgs boson

Boston Globe: Physicists say they have found a Higgs boson

BBC (UK): LHC cements Higgs boson identification

BusinessWeek: Case for Higgs Boson Strengthened by New CERN Analysis

The Daily Mail (UK): Scientists say they HAVE found the 'God particle' - but admit they still aren't sure what type of Higgs boson it is

The Independent (UK): Have they found the Higgs boson at last? Cern physicists say they're confident of 'God particle' breakthrough

Telegraph (UK): Higgs boson: scientists confident they have discovered the 'God particle'

News Limited (AU): Higgs boson, the God particle, discovered by CERN

US News and World Report: Physicists Observe Higgs Boson, the Elusive 'God Particle'

None of these articles make any links to "God" other than a few -- mostly UK, not US -- sources referring to it as the so-called "God particle", but even those explain exactly what this particle is theorized to be, not anything supernatural, "proving God exists", or having anything whatever to do with God.

You really should start your medication, boy. Then read the fucking article, which says this is common and expected behavior. Of course, if it had been anything but the Register it wouldn't be blowing it so much out of proportion. Here are a few better links to the same story, by less disreputable sources:

New York Daily News
Atlantic Wire
Herald Sun (Australia)
Huffington Post
Slate (Slate credits BoingBoing)

Google News is full of them. There was one story by a business blog that questioned its authenticity on Google's list of stories from the search term "Ukraine dolphins"

Wild enough?

http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1280390

No one is going to dress up as a cardinal and sneak into the Sistine Chapel.

Challenge accepted!

You sir, are a god among slashdotters. Too bad nobody will see this.

This is something they understand very well, actually. They also understand that this is something that can be fixed and this is the reason they are bringing them to fashion shows.

It's not just Ron...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/woman-body-scanned-times-tsa-dallas-airport-cute-figure-article-1.1022803

"I got the Flu shot and I had a Flu for 72 hours!" or "it only works 9% of the time? Big Pharm SUCKS!" Sorry to hear that your 80 year-old grandma had a fever after getting a flu shot. but people take too much stuff for granted.

It was not that long ago that the Spanish Flu wiped out millions of people. If want something more recent visit Africa. They only had 550,000+ deaths for malaria.

If you something worth while, post it. Otherwise people don't care you got a flu shot and got sick anyways; stuff happens, grow up.

CES is not a political show

Wow. Set off my bullshit detector in the first sentence.

Former President Bill Clinton pushes for stricter gun control during Consumer Electronics Show speech

I suspect we witness here a case of a political view, and even a politician, that is considered so mainstream that they no longer suffer the "political" qualification.

Just for the record, any "show" that has Bill Clinton as a featured speaker is political.

NY Daily News story says Iran claims they just issued the wrong photo, though there's no video of the rockets return to earth. (Mobile site) http://m.nydailynews.com/news/world/iranian-space-monkey-flight-fake-article-1.1253425

The push to ban guns has nothing to do with safety and crime. It's all about clearing out any ability to resist sweeping governmental changes that would be met with armed resistance from gun owners and sane people who love freedom.

Not for the chickenshits. They just want to feel that warm, fuzzy "safe" feeling they get from things like watching kids get molested by perverts at the airport or having them arrested for talking about Hello Kitty toys.

Science isn't really incompatible with gods, as long as your definition of the term blah blah blah

Science is incompatible with not only deities but the very notion of deities. There is as much evidence proving deities exist as there is is that the invisible pink unicorn, flying spaghetti monster, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, or the sandman exists. That alone makes religion incompatible with science and rational thought.

What seems to make science incompatible with gods are blah blah blah

When someone uses "what seems" is usually followed by something that cannot be backed by facts.

What science is incompatible with is when religion is used as a mechanism of control instead of enlightenment and mental discipline.

Enlightenment and wisdom are just terms that really mean religious brainwashing. Rational thought always beats your "enlightenment" and "wisdom" any day.

It is incompatible with those religions where anti-knowledge dogma is somehow accepted as what their god wants, even though most foundational holy books and writings say no such things.

Just take a look at all holy books and they will tell people to kill in the name of . No one has killed in the name of Atheism.

(Of course, some say plenty on how NOT to run a society and they get roundly ignored in the name of the religion of capitalism and the altar of the free market but I digress.) The top-down control mechanism, the picking and choosing of beliefs, and the unacceptable of curiosity are unfortunately hallmarks of way too many religions.

Not all capitalists are religionists but all religionists are Capitalist. Ever wonder why? The answer is simple: Capitalism, like religion, is a means to brainwash and control others. They are both responsible for numerous deaths in history. Stalin and Hitler were both devout catholics, Bin Laden was islamic, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were both protestants, Fuck, even the "an ye harm none" folks in the pagan religions are violent Apparently the "sacred" rede means "An ye harm none that is non-pagan. Do what ye will to those that are non pagan and kill the rest." Another reason to enact a global ban on religion and treat the religionists with mental disorders to deprogram them from religious thought.

Do you have a reference for this, or have you just watched too many Tarintino movies?

Yeah, because the people who commit federal crimes by illegally modifying firearms to full auto and manufacturing silencers advertise on craigslist.

Because I am actually from the City of Detroit, and I have actually met criminals, who actually tried to steal from me (occasionally they were even successful), and I have never heard of anyone making a business of converting firearms to fire on full auto, or building silencers.

Yeah, because if you've never heard of something, that's proof positive that it doesn't exist.

How about a media report of an arrest of someone in possession of illegally converted machine guns and suppressors?

Like this...

Heck, off the top of my head I can't think of a time when a criminal did a full-auto conversion on his own, or used a silencer. I;m sure somebody's done it, probably a Mexican cartel, but it just is not common.

More often than not, they take their money to someone who knows what he's doing and get him to do the conversion and build the suppressors.

LK

I resemble very much being called a half wit, AC. And I have half a mind to tell you where to go. But I confess that when it comes to the American sheeple, you are sadly too right.

TSA gets a pass by most Americans.

Ben Franklin said it so nicely. His exact quote is as follows:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

This was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759); the book was published by Franklin; its author was Richard Jackson, but Franklin did claim responsibility for some small excerpts that were used in it.

An earlier variant by Franklin in Poor Richard's Almanack (1738): "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

Many paraphrased derivatives of this have often become attributed to Franklin: They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither. He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security. He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both. If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both. Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither. Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither. Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.

Dolphins rape each other, perfectly natural. Not good.

Think that's bad, see the happy penguins.

Or maybe his father just needed to establish a usage contract for the video games similar to the cellphone one that made the news: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/mom-attaches-18-point-contract-teen-iphone-article-1.1229991

or a skeptic of $prevailingOpinionOnHighlyPoliticizedTopic in the scientific community.

*yawn* The only people still denying AGW are not "skeptics" they are people who have a political or economic reason to deny it. Especially in light of this, this and this. These are people who were specifically trying to disprove everyone else and instead confirmed the prevailing stance the "politicized topic".

Sorry, but the last remaining industry shills trying to proclaim AGW as not true are being intentionally dishonest.

People going about their daily business in a foreign country not at war with us, who would probably never earn enough in their lifetime just to get the planefare to the US together, are "insurgents"?

Yeah. Like this guy:

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1188027.1354977866!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/libya19e-1-web.jpg

...just a normal civilian minding his own business.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/fbi-questions-suspect-benghazi-attack-hours-article-1.1226081

People going about their daily business in a foreign country not at war with us, who would probably never earn enough in their lifetime just to get the planefare to the US together, are "insurgents"?

Yeah. Like this guy:

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1188027.1354977866!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/libya19e-1-web.jpg

...just a normal civilian minding his own business.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/fbi-questions-suspect-benghazi-attack-hours-article-1.1226081

Seriously, WTF. He was drawing "weapons" in his notebook.
Was he plotting out detailed plans for causing mass destruction? No?

Maybe he drew a detailed blueprint for an atomic bomb? Or maybe just an IDE? No?
TFA doesn't say. Another article quotes his mom saying that he drew a glove shooting fire. A glove... shooting magical fire... WTF?
Ok maybe it was this one. Maybe he was planning to build his own? That would have been aweso... err I mean criminal!

But wait, since the staff called the police then there must be some threat that he poses, right? Let's search his house just to be safe. Oh look! We found scary-looking exposed electronic parts!
Oh, and some "chemicals" that could be mixed together to make an explosive!
Let's throw the book at him! Great job here, boys. Let's grab a round and celebrate.

As that same picture isn't part of the original story I choose to believe that's a bit of creative editing by the NY Daily News. Nothing makes an article like this even scarier than adding in a nice picture of lots of unlabeled containers in a basement next to something odd that is cooking away. It doesn't help that the picture is labeled with the generic title of explosives.jpg http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1223534.1355938579!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/explosives.jpg

If this article from a local rag is indeed showing a picture of what they found, this may have been warranted.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/n-boy-arrested-bomb-making-parts-article-1.1223474

Note tha it doesn't indicate the source of the picture though. It looks like far more than common sink chemicals.

Agreed. There various "races" of chimpanzees. Te bigger ones have half the size of a human but ten times his strength.
A chimpanzee literally can rip your arms or legs out.
There is an article somewhere on the internet about a guy who hold about three chimps in his garden. At one point they suddenly attacked him. If there was no one close with a colt he had died. He is now maimed for live. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/man-lost-face-05-mauling-hell-new-chimpanzee-victim-article-1.364450

If you google for chimpanzze on man attacks you get hundrets of hist about happenings during the last ten years.

They are realy dangerous.