HINT TO EDITORS:
An "April Fools Day" joke should not be something overtly ridiculous. It should be something that misdirects in a clever and misleading way.
- Try something like the "dihydrogen monoxide ban gets on the Aliso Viejo city council's agenda" joke or something similar.
- Another more practical example for everyone is to grab each employee where you work as they arrive and have them call in sick. After a few minutes the management should be frantic.
Listing plot lines from popular sci fi stories as news articles fails so badly on all fronts except for topping the "lame meter". Come on guys. Try something CLEVER! (Oh, and something that is funny would be nice too.)
"Jersey is like a Lamborghini Miura from the 70s. Originally awesome even as it breaks down from time to time and slips into decrepit use. It always remained awesome as its lunacy remains. And then one day it (in a prima donna hissyfit?) PUNCHES your plain old Ford Focus of a producer right in the face when he says "You will fill up with this crappy 85 octane out of an old pail even though you are specified to only use 93 octane... And you will like it!". And then everyone came out of the woodwork and starts saying "It wasn't a sensible car" when that was NEVER the point and was why it was wonderful to begin with."
When they are out on a shoot I would expect a quality hot meal for the camera men and the grips let alone your star presenter!
Your analysis is insightful. Your attempt at a solution is problematical.
How to solve this? (If it is even remotely possible...) Demand that children are COMPETENT in critical thinking and understand that the underlying principles of this country are about taking the RISK OF LIBERTY, that government DOES NOT SOLVE PROBLEMS, and to take personal responsibility for things around them.
Problem is, who makes the tests? What is competency? Who gets to define it? Do you really think you could get a set of wingnuts in a room to actually agree about something?
I can't think of anything about education that isn't problematic. There is nothing about our education system that isn't problematic. It is a hierarchy of rolling disaster. (The first thing is to fire 1/2 of the administration. Education is WAY too expensive because we have more people "administrating" instead of sitting in a classroom in front of students.)
Testing is always a problem but you have to have some basis for finding out if the efforts of education are effective. Otherwise you have headed into the new-age nonsense of pandering to children.
There are specific techniques for creating good test questions. You simply look at the responses to individual questions and see if they statistically differentiate between students with a higher and lower level of comprehension of the subject matter. If a question doesn't tend to distinguish between a higher level student and a lower level student then it is a bad question and should be discarded. A test can then be effectively designed with a range of questions that tend to differentiate between the different levels of A, B, C, etc... students. And the number of these questions is designed to generate the grade dispersal you require.
As far as dealing with the "wingnut" issue, that is where the drastic reduction of administration comes to bear. Having the number of people in positions of administrative authority that we do we automatically end up with that many people applying "power". All of this action without being in front of a classroom is insane and we are paying $$$ for it.
We currently have a system where instruction is simply targeted directly at standardized tests. No "teacher" thought up this stupidity. It came from administrators that look at children and see how many $$$ a day of funding they provide and the results of standardized tests control that funding. "Stupid by law..."
I can tell you a very simple test for an understanding of the underlying principles of this country and competent critical thinking: Someone should be able to effectively argue a position that they adamantly do not agree with, and they should demand that someone else should have the right to speak a view that they personally find objectionable.
I agree with you about the personal responsibility bit. I disagree with the categorical shout about solving problems, because all it takes is one (1) instance to disprove the opinion.
The shout comes from the simple fact that the job done by federal (and most state) government(s) is so bad as to be laughable. If you had a teenage child that had the same fiscal responsibility and ability to dance around the truth as the government you would ground them for life.
What is an "Enforced Education Camp"? Sounds like part of a juvenile detention system.
As far as implementing the "universal competency of critical thinking"... I said no such thing and I don't think any sane person would think it is possible. You might as well pass a law making an above average IQ mandatory. It serves no purpose. (Hey! Let's pass a law making pi equal to 3! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...)
But you can expose people to the concept and process of thinking for themselves and lay out a framework for intelligent, skeptical analysis of ideas and the life around them. With the internet spewing stupidity at a higher rate then accurate, intelligent information we need to offer people the tools to deal with the bright, shiny bullshit that is waiting to inundate them.
The problem isn't Republicans. It isn't even Democrats.
(The problem may not even be Libertarians but we will never know will we...)
Our problem is government by popularity contest in a world that will keep watching more then 5 seconds after they hear "Kardashians". We have a people that let the courts declare that corporations have the rights assigned to people. We have "We The People" who are so adverse to risk that they live in fear of terrorists while living in the safest era in human history and then they demand that the government devours personal liberties en masse to give what is only the popular appearance of something called "safety". We have a country that when polled 80% were in favor of warning labels on food that has DNA in it. (And if you are reading this and you don't know why DNA warnings are an unbelievably stupid idea then you are an idiot and you should stop reading now and take some remedial science courses immediately.)
How to solve this? (If it is even remotely possible...) Demand that children are COMPETENT in critical thinking and understand that the underlying principles of this country are about taking the RISK OF LIBERTY, that government DOES NOT SOLVE PROBLEMS, and to take personal responsibility for things around them.
(... Hallelujah... Holy shit... Where's the Tylenol?)
The range and the length of time that it takes to charge a battery is the big Achilles heel to the adoption of the electric car.
Every RC car enthusiast solved that problem a few decades ago by using standardized modular battery packs.
Why can't the car industry "invent" batteries that are of a modular form factor and easily swappable at a charging station? (perhaps using multiples of a standard size which can be configured in different locations and numbers to fit a vehicle's needs.)
Yes, Tesla has done the basics of this in a non modular/standardized way which has much improved potential but misses on the ubiquitousness of an "automotive D cell".
But seeing that we are talking about Jersey I suspect that it will be illegal to plug in your own electric car just like you can't fill your own gas tank...
Uhhh...
So is a Tesla designed with a 40 mile reserve so you can get to a dealer so they can charge it?
It would so TOTALLY make more sense to keep non violent criminals in prison where it costs $60k a year to house them. (Uhhh, yeahhh....)
Wait...
Or were you trying to say you don't think there should be sentencing of confinement for anything except violent offenses? (Because white collar crime doesn't really count does it...)
You missed the opportunity to craft a link to pay yourself as the referrer!:$
__________
And the article misses a BIG obvious reason for laundry lists. The better, more experienced candidates don't have certifications for any current technology because they have been working while the current technology was invented and rolled out.
The young "certified" candidates will command a significantly smaller wage and they might even be able to do the job. They also won't push back on the endless demands that you be available 24/7/365...
And when it blows up in their face you will have to find an IT worker with lots of solid real world experience to dig you out of your hole... as a consultant...
"Large inherent losses" can be easily dealt with if there is a large supply of affordable energy.
The cost per unit of energy must be calculated to include the cost of the storage scheme. If that total cost is viable then it is "problem solved".
I've never seen a cost analysis of what it would cost to use hydrogen generation as a storage medium. There are so many uses and benefits that I've always been interested in that as a system.
The "measurement made by a conscious being" is not the deciding point. It just makes it more interesting. The quantum implications of the uncertainty principle doesn't require a consciousness to 'make a measurement' that would cause a wave function to collapse to a single solution. It happens all the time with normal interactions. The only unique thing about a consciousness being involved is we can decide to set up the conditions where it will happen and then we notice it. No one spends a lot of time on what we don't notice...
RAID is not a backup or an archive solution.
If you store a raid it can't detect data and/or media degradation because the system isn't running. I haven't seen many safe deposit boxes that allow you to run a computer inside of them. The drives will most likely degrade inside of 10 years.
To archive something you want archival media. Something like the 100+ or 200+ year gold archival DVDs and Blu-ray discs. The readers for those disks will be available for a couple decades at least. (Look at M-Disc as an example)
Enforcement has always been about money instead of safety. NHTSA studies have consistently shown that driving slower then the flow of traffic has a WAY higher risk of causing of accidents then driving the same speed faster then the flow. The fact is people get excited by speed so they put up with the focus on speed and cops get a rush out of enforcing it. It is much more interesting then enforcing failure to yield / right of way and other truly dangerous acts.
Can the police supply a single instance where Waze actually caused a single injury of a police officer? If is amazing how many police officers signed up for an exciting career in law enforcement (exciting because it has risk) and recently they have been starting to whine about the risk from non credible sources of risk.
The issue is money. The Mac and PC products are major dollars multiplied by a major quantity of installs which equals $$$$ for development. And people are willing to pay those prices as the market clearly shows. Unless you have a large player make the investment (like a major studio) or unless you get a huge developer base (like Linux has) you aren't going to end up with anything compelling.
Yeah! Americans won't stand for slave like labor conditions which is why the iPhone bombed in the US market after working conditions at Foxconn were revealed. Yup! The iPhone is completely dead in the US!!!
There is nothing safer then being "made helpless by law".
Oh yeah...
CHEMTRAILS ARE REAL. Because condensation because of low pressure vortices is much less believable then a secret program to spend money to spray chemicals that have never been detected and have never been reported by low paid airport ramp workers!
While we are talking to idiots... What other swamp land can I sell?
So it is like an individual can playback sing for an individual actor - but a choir cannot. Due to the inevitable differences in frequencies and timings of members of the choir.
This gets to the heart of it. The type of person you put in an organization obviously fuels the traits of an organization but over time it will be trumped by the structure of an organization.
First off, If you haven't read "The Peter Principle" (1969) find a copy. It is funny but the humor is built on the fact that it is based on truth. Once you start getting a feel for how the normal actions of people are influenced by life inside a hierarchy then turn your head to the problem of how people get to the upper portions of the hierarchy. The leading motivations of people will be getting a raise or bonus, getting a better position or a promotion, and avoiding being terminated. The way you do this is by currying favor with people above you in the hierarchy, and creating alliances with people at the same level or below you. (And yes, "currying favor" can be as simple as simply doing a good job but it also includes making other people's work look bad...)
The number one way to accomplish this is to have a convincing, persuasive personality. The ability to actively manipulate someones impression of you is not tied to any level of morality and is commonly found in sociopaths. A famous quote, "Power corrupts..." leads in to an observation in many financial news sources over the last 10 years that CEOs have a MUCH higher percentage of psychopaths then the general population. Just one example: Do psychopaths make good CEOs? The pretty obvious conclusion that the tendencies that lend well to the "climb to the top" also tend to lean away from moral functioning.
Existing in a framework of power is not a way to build toward actions that would be perceived as moral. A new organization can be a wonderful thing because it was created in situ. But as time passes the inexorable influences of a hierarchy will bend it in much less altruistic directions. Over time your only real influences to counter this are the need to counter outside negative perception ("Hey! They aren't moral!") and the need to fight stagnation which leads to reorganization.
You can ascribe the actions of a hierarchy as being what you think of as moral but a hierarchy is not sentient so it cannot be moral.
You are an individual sentient being so you are able to judge that the Salvation Army acts in a way that you perceive as moral. That is your perception not the thinking judgment of a hierarchy.
--------
BTW - Good example using the Salvation Army. They are the only charity that I support!!!
The cost of reviewing video with nothing going on IS free, as even the cheapest camera will only show video where there is motion detected. I would bet the average single family residence (with no kids) probably has less then 5 minutes of motion at the front door and driveway during a day. Fast forward and your time is now down to close to nil.
Add to this the rapid development and falling cost of machine intelligence with video processing and you are looking at the beginning of a totalitarian "video state". The technology exists to use video surveillance to use facial recognition and processing of objects to automatically issue citations for j-walking or littering. I bet we could think of hundreds of other profitable invasive uses that are possible. Of course people (sheep) say, "Oh they would never do that." And a few decades ago people would never have believed that the government would have the ability to look at every purchase transaction that people make, and they certainly wouldn't have believed that "The People" would ever stand for that level of intrusion. But you have a credit/debit card with you right now and using it doesn't make you flinch.
Governments nowadays ALL coin the phrase "sources of revenue". What this means is the people working in government see the citizens that they are supposed to serve as their source of $$$. The fact is that government cannot resist getting their hands on more money (numerical unit of power).
The law used to be a framework where if someone caused a problem they could find a way to deter them from being a problem. There was no intention of enforcing all laws 100% of the time. Now when something happens the agents of the government never ask, "Should we apply this law? but instead only ask, "Can we apply this law?". Add this to the endless search for more revenue and you have a future where the video camera sees you drop a $5 bill, detects dropped paper, and the facial recognition system mails you a $1000 littering fine.
The endless creep of intrusion is headed that way and unless something huge happens it will slowly become the norm. But thank god!!! It will make you safer!!!! But safety is a FEELING, especially when it doesn't come with a real percentage of improvement in life expectancy. And LIBERTY (all in caps!) is a RISK and it always was a risk. A risk that a lot of people died for.
Slashdot Mirror
HINT TO EDITORS:
An "April Fools Day" joke should not be something overtly ridiculous. It should be something that misdirects in a clever and misleading way.
- Try something like the "dihydrogen monoxide ban gets on the Aliso Viejo city council's agenda" joke or something similar.
- Another more practical example for everyone is to grab each employee where you work as they arrive and have them call in sick. After a few minutes the management should be frantic.
Listing plot lines from popular sci fi stories as news articles fails so badly on all fronts except for topping the "lame meter". Come on guys. Try something CLEVER! (Oh, and something that is funny would be nice too.)
Their own on-air commentary on winning an award for being a "factual based" program is priceless.
"Jersey is like a Lamborghini Miura from the 70s. Originally awesome even as it breaks down from time to time and slips into decrepit use. It always remained awesome as its lunacy remains. And then one day it (in a prima donna hissyfit?) PUNCHES your plain old Ford Focus of a producer right in the face when he says "You will fill up with this crappy 85 octane out of an old pail even though you are specified to only use 93 octane... And you will like it!". And then everyone came out of the woodwork and starts saying "It wasn't a sensible car" when that was NEVER the point and was why it was wonderful to begin with."
When they are out on a shoot I would expect a quality hot meal for the camera men and the grips let alone your star presenter!
Your analysis is insightful. Your attempt at a solution is problematical.
How to solve this? (If it is even remotely possible...) Demand that children are COMPETENT in critical thinking and understand that the underlying principles of this country are about taking the RISK OF LIBERTY, that government DOES NOT SOLVE PROBLEMS, and to take personal responsibility for things around them.
Problem is, who makes the tests? What is competency? Who gets to define it? Do you really think you could get a set of wingnuts in a room to actually agree about something?
I can't think of anything about education that isn't problematic. There is nothing about our education system that isn't problematic. It is a hierarchy of rolling disaster. (The first thing is to fire 1/2 of the administration. Education is WAY too expensive because we have more people "administrating" instead of sitting in a classroom in front of students.)
Testing is always a problem but you have to have some basis for finding out if the efforts of education are effective. Otherwise you have headed into the new-age nonsense of pandering to children.
There are specific techniques for creating good test questions. You simply look at the responses to individual questions and see if they statistically differentiate between students with a higher and lower level of comprehension of the subject matter. If a question doesn't tend to distinguish between a higher level student and a lower level student then it is a bad question and should be discarded. A test can then be effectively designed with a range of questions that tend to differentiate between the different levels of A, B, C, etc... students. And the number of these questions is designed to generate the grade dispersal you require.
As far as dealing with the "wingnut" issue, that is where the drastic reduction of administration comes to bear. Having the number of people in positions of administrative authority that we do we automatically end up with that many people applying "power". All of this action without being in front of a classroom is insane and we are paying $$$ for it.
We currently have a system where instruction is simply targeted directly at standardized tests. No "teacher" thought up this stupidity. It came from administrators that look at children and see how many $$$ a day of funding they provide and the results of standardized tests control that funding. "Stupid by law..."
I can tell you a very simple test for an understanding of the underlying principles of this country and competent critical thinking: Someone should be able to effectively argue a position that they adamantly do not agree with, and they should demand that someone else should have the right to speak a view that they personally find objectionable.
I agree with you about the personal responsibility bit. I disagree with the categorical shout about solving problems, because all it takes is one (1) instance to disprove the opinion.
The shout comes from the simple fact that the job done by federal (and most state) government(s) is so bad as to be laughable. If you had a teenage child that had the same fiscal responsibility and ability to dance around the truth as the government you would ground them for life.
What is an "Enforced Education Camp"? Sounds like part of a juvenile detention system.
As far as implementing the "universal competency of critical thinking"... I said no such thing and I don't think any sane person would think it is possible. You might as well pass a law making an above average IQ mandatory. It serves no purpose. (Hey! Let's pass a law making pi equal to 3! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... )
But you can expose people to the concept and process of thinking for themselves and lay out a framework for intelligent, skeptical analysis of ideas and the life around them. With the internet spewing stupidity at a higher rate then accurate, intelligent information we need to offer people the tools to deal with the bright, shiny bullshit that is waiting to inundate them.
The problem isn't Republicans. It isn't even Democrats.
(The problem may not even be Libertarians but we will never know will we...)
Our problem is government by popularity contest in a world that will keep watching more then 5 seconds after they hear "Kardashians". We have a people that let the courts declare that corporations have the rights assigned to people. We have "We The People" who are so adverse to risk that they live in fear of terrorists while living in the safest era in human history and then they demand that the government devours personal liberties en masse to give what is only the popular appearance of something called "safety". We have a country that when polled 80% were in favor of warning labels on food that has DNA in it. (And if you are reading this and you don't know why DNA warnings are an unbelievably stupid idea then you are an idiot and you should stop reading now and take some remedial science courses immediately.)
How to solve this? (If it is even remotely possible...) Demand that children are COMPETENT in critical thinking and understand that the underlying principles of this country are about taking the RISK OF LIBERTY, that government DOES NOT SOLVE PROBLEMS, and to take personal responsibility for things around them.
(... Hallelujah... Holy shit... Where's the Tylenol?)
The range and the length of time that it takes to charge a battery is the big Achilles heel to the adoption of the electric car.
Every RC car enthusiast solved that problem a few decades ago by using standardized modular battery packs.
Why can't the car industry "invent" batteries that are of a modular form factor and easily swappable at a charging station? (perhaps using multiples of a standard size which can be configured in different locations and numbers to fit a vehicle's needs.)
Yes, Tesla has done the basics of this in a non modular/standardized way which has much improved potential but misses on the ubiquitousness of an "automotive D cell".
But seeing that we are talking about Jersey I suspect that it will be illegal to plug in your own electric car just like you can't fill your own gas tank...
...
Uhhh
So is a Tesla designed with a 40 mile reserve so you can get to a dealer so they can charge it?
It would so TOTALLY make more sense to keep non violent criminals in prison where it costs $60k a year to house them. (Uhhh, yeahhh....)
...)
Wait...
Or were you trying to say you don't think there should be sentencing of confinement for anything except violent offenses? (Because white collar crime doesn't really count does it
You missed the opportunity to craft a link to pay yourself as the referrer! :$
... as a consultant...
__________
And the article misses a BIG obvious reason for laundry lists. The better, more experienced candidates don't have certifications for any current technology because they have been working while the current technology was invented and rolled out.
The young "certified" candidates will command a significantly smaller wage and they might even be able to do the job. They also won't push back on the endless demands that you be available 24/7/365...
And when it blows up in their face you will have to find an IT worker with lots of solid real world experience to dig you out of your hole
Lack of a Social Security Number in no way makes it legal for you not to file taxes. It only makes it so you are harder to track.
If they become an established content providor it will force torrents to be treated like an intrenched pipeline like cable, satellite, or broadcast.
I double dog dare you!!
"Large inherent losses" can be easily dealt with if there is a large supply of affordable energy.
The cost per unit of energy must be calculated to include the cost of the storage scheme. If that total cost is viable then it is "problem solved".
I've never seen a cost analysis of what it would cost to use hydrogen generation as a storage medium. There are so many uses and benefits that I've always been interested in that as a system.
The "measurement made by a conscious being" is not the deciding point. It just makes it more interesting. The quantum implications of the uncertainty principle doesn't require a consciousness to 'make a measurement' that would cause a wave function to collapse to a single solution. It happens all the time with normal interactions. The only unique thing about a consciousness being involved is we can decide to set up the conditions where it will happen and then we notice it. No one spends a lot of time on what we don't notice...
I think almost all of this discussion comes under the second heading of: http://www.suck.com/daily/1997...
RAID is not a backup or an archive solution.
If you store a raid it can't detect data and/or media degradation because the system isn't running. I haven't seen many safe deposit boxes that allow you to run a computer inside of them. The drives will most likely degrade inside of 10 years.
To archive something you want archival media. Something like the 100+ or 200+ year gold archival DVDs and Blu-ray discs. The readers for those disks will be available for a couple decades at least. (Look at M-Disc as an example)
Enforcement has always been about money instead of safety. NHTSA studies have consistently shown that driving slower then the flow of traffic has a WAY higher risk of causing of accidents then driving the same speed faster then the flow. The fact is people get excited by speed so they put up with the focus on speed and cops get a rush out of enforcing it. It is much more interesting then enforcing failure to yield / right of way and other truly dangerous acts.
Can the police supply a single instance where Waze actually caused a single injury of a police officer? If is amazing how many police officers signed up for an exciting career in law enforcement (exciting because it has risk) and recently they have been starting to whine about the risk from non credible sources of risk.
Exactly!
I can see the headline now: "340 car pileup caused by 'terrorist' who rented a snowplow."
The issue is money. The Mac and PC products are major dollars multiplied by a major quantity of installs which equals $$$$ for development. And people are willing to pay those prices as the market clearly shows. Unless you have a large player make the investment (like a major studio) or unless you get a huge developer base (like Linux has) you aren't going to end up with anything compelling.
They found it wearing a thong and lacie bra.
From the OP it said it disappeared in "the early naughties".
Yeah! Americans won't stand for slave like labor conditions which is why the iPhone bombed in the US market after working conditions at Foxconn were revealed. Yup! The iPhone is completely dead in the US!!!
...
- You are a complete idiot.
Or option B
There is nothing safer then being "made helpless by law".
...
Oh yeah
CHEMTRAILS ARE REAL. Because condensation because of low pressure vortices is much less believable then a secret program to spend money to spray chemicals that have never been detected and have never been reported by low paid airport ramp workers!
While we are talking to idiots... What other swamp land can I sell?
. . .
So it is like an individual can playback sing for an individual actor - but a choir cannot. Due to the inevitable differences in frequencies and timings of members of the choir.
This gets to the heart of it. The type of person you put in an organization obviously fuels the traits of an organization but over time it will be trumped by the structure of an organization.
..." leads in to an observation in many financial news sources over the last 10 years that CEOs have a MUCH higher percentage of psychopaths then the general population. Just one example: Do psychopaths make good CEOs? The pretty obvious conclusion that the tendencies that lend well to the "climb to the top" also tend to lean away from moral functioning.
First off, If you haven't read "The Peter Principle" (1969) find a copy. It is funny but the humor is built on the fact that it is based on truth. Once you start getting a feel for how the normal actions of people are influenced by life inside a hierarchy then turn your head to the problem of how people get to the upper portions of the hierarchy. The leading motivations of people will be getting a raise or bonus, getting a better position or a promotion, and avoiding being terminated. The way you do this is by currying favor with people above you in the hierarchy, and creating alliances with people at the same level or below you. (And yes, "currying favor" can be as simple as simply doing a good job but it also includes making other people's work look bad...)
The number one way to accomplish this is to have a convincing, persuasive personality. The ability to actively manipulate someones impression of you is not tied to any level of morality and is commonly found in sociopaths. A famous quote, "Power corrupts
Existing in a framework of power is not a way to build toward actions that would be perceived as moral. A new organization can be a wonderful thing because it was created in situ. But as time passes the inexorable influences of a hierarchy will bend it in much less altruistic directions. Over time your only real influences to counter this are the need to counter outside negative perception ("Hey! They aren't moral!") and the need to fight stagnation which leads to reorganization.
You can ascribe the actions of a hierarchy as being what you think of as moral but a hierarchy is not sentient so it cannot be moral.
You are an individual sentient being so you are able to judge that the Salvation Army acts in a way that you perceive as moral. That is your perception not the thinking judgment of a hierarchy.
--------
BTW - Good example using the Salvation Army. They are the only charity that I support!!!
The cost of reviewing video with nothing going on IS free, as even the cheapest camera will only show video where there is motion detected. I would bet the average single family residence (with no kids) probably has less then 5 minutes of motion at the front door and driveway during a day. Fast forward and your time is now down to close to nil.
Add to this the rapid development and falling cost of machine intelligence with video processing and you are looking at the beginning of a totalitarian "video state". The technology exists to use video surveillance to use facial recognition and processing of objects to automatically issue citations for j-walking or littering. I bet we could think of hundreds of other profitable invasive uses that are possible. Of course people (sheep) say, "Oh they would never do that." And a few decades ago people would never have believed that the government would have the ability to look at every purchase transaction that people make, and they certainly wouldn't have believed that "The People" would ever stand for that level of intrusion. But you have a credit/debit card with you right now and using it doesn't make you flinch.
Governments nowadays ALL coin the phrase "sources of revenue". What this means is the people working in government see the citizens that they are supposed to serve as their source of $$$. The fact is that government cannot resist getting their hands on more money (numerical unit of power).
The law used to be a framework where if someone caused a problem they could find a way to deter them from being a problem. There was no intention of enforcing all laws 100% of the time. Now when something happens the agents of the government never ask, "Should we apply this law? but instead only ask, "Can we apply this law?". Add this to the endless search for more revenue and you have a future where the video camera sees you drop a $5 bill, detects dropped paper, and the facial recognition system mails you a $1000 littering fine.
The endless creep of intrusion is headed that way and unless something huge happens it will slowly become the norm. But thank god!!! It will make you safer!!!!
But safety is a FEELING, especially when it doesn't come with a real percentage of improvement in life expectancy. And LIBERTY (all in caps!) is a RISK and it always was a risk. A risk that a lot of people died for.