While I am not going to waste the time explaining such a simple concept to you, I will give you a hint: Calendar years begin on January 1. Comparative year over year benchmarks begin whenever the hell you want.
If you are still confused, think about your birthday (lets assume its every year, like most people, but now its June 14 every year) and the fact that you can talk about things that happened since each one and compare them.
If you don't get it now, you really shouldn't be on/.
In Japan, the original (silver console) launch, the 20 GB was 20% cheaper than the 60 GB but it did not include the chrome trim, flash card readers, silver logo, and Wi-F, coming in at 60,000 yen. Back then, this was only 270 Euros (at the time, about $375). In the US it launched in two models, one at 499 and one at 599 (the extra C-note brought you from 20 GB to 60GB and got you one HDMI port, one Ethernet port and four USB ports instead of 2 HDMI ports, three Ethernet ports and six USB ports as promised prior to the delay from November to March). In Europe the launch was the same, only euros instead of dollars, which back in 2006 was around $1.4 USD per Euro (so much more expensive). In Singapore, it started at 799 with an 80 GB model including IPTV.
I am going to jump a little off the topic of your post but stay relevant to the article here:
The models that dropped to $400 and below did not include backwards compatability which got many people upset because the launch PS3s are the only way to get upconverted PS2 games. I suppose if anyone wants to prove they really bought a PS3 for the Other OS feature, they had the opportunity to register their PS3 with Sony, which includes space on the registration form that came with the PS3 for comments, including a specific question asking what influenced their decision to purchase. If anyone filled one out and wrote down Linux and PS3 games, they might have a real lawsuit. If they just wrote down linux, there was no need to update the firmware.
Meanwhile, Sony has always been selling the PS3 as an entertainment system. If you have been using it to wash your car, your expectations regarding continuing use are not valid. There is nothing to stop you from using your PS3 to wash your car, but when Sony stops making the same size PS3 and the new PS3 slim doesn't work as well, you can't get mad that one day you might not be able to wash your car anymore. You might have to go to a car wash.
Now, if you replace wash your car with supercomputing research, you have the situation the air force is in (the car wash here is an expensive government contract devoted to air force needs).
The lawsuits noted in the summary are not related to this complaint.
Of the versions you showed, the US version is for Vista, and the EU version is for Mac. Of course the Mac version is more expensive. It's for Mac (which means people will pay a much higher price for the exact same product even if it doesn't work as well as on competitors hardware; also development costs are spread across a smaller marketbase thus raising price), and its in the EU (which means it has VAT). Meanwhile, the same product comparatively, when both version are for vista, shows http://www.amazon.de/Adobe-Creative-Master-Collection-deutsch/dp/B003FSSL5K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1273780415&sr=1-1
The Vista EU version is 1784 Euro, which is 2230 USD. Its cheaper in Europe for the same product.
This, by the way, is a fairly niche product that hasn't been released yet, and due to its price, will only be purchased by those who have a very real need for it. No one is buying this unless they already have a way to profit from it or they are super rich and spend their money on software instead of cars and vacation houses.
If you don't like European software laws, set up your company in the US (business registrations are along the lines of $250 a year, and if you can't afford that but for some reason need $2500 software packages, you might try another line of business, for example not having one) and set up a European subsidiary that has to follow the software of the parent company in order to gain work. File everything under US GAAP and make sure you have a residence. A US citizen in name owning the company probably wouldn't hurt (keeping you as either an employee or a [non-general] partner. At any rate, keep the liability in the US, and you can use US software no problem. On the other hand, unless you are a fairly large (publicly traded or on the cusp of doing so) company, hiring expats for the sake of saving money on software doesn't really make any sense. While you *can* do this, it definitely won't be worth the time or effort.
Thats sounds much easier...just find a bank of parking meters and have the system point out (by numbered parking spot) which ones are already paid for (even just have a car in them, by weight displacement in the space). In specific areas, it may already be a cell phone app.
Anytime you write something down, it is less secure than simply memorizing. How on earth do you jump to the thought that memorization is insecure?
As for your password rules, your IT dept is mentally retarded. Unless someone is trying to brute force your password on a regular basis, your system is absolutely overkill.
The kindle note taking feature is electronic, and you are taking notes on a book that is stored on a server, with a paid for connection where Amazon stores your notes. Why would you possibly think that these notes are not already stored by Amazon? Your notes are by definition shared. Therefore if you are averse to sharing your notes, don't write them down on Amazon's server. This isn't complicated.
I really don't follow your 'huh?'. I have to assume you aren't a kindle user, and that you also have never even glanced at a TOS in your life. The user expectation is that Amazon is not sharing your personal information. Pretty much every TOS for every electronic good or service includes a legally enforceable statement in the TOS that personal information (which would include things written by the user personally) are not going to be shared with 3rd parties without express permission (I'm paraphrasing of course, but this message is included with my toaster, my email, and my kindle all have this...). Seeing as this feature of highlight aggregation (in which you are not identified) for the kindle is opt-in by default (both the aggregation of the your data and the choice to view such), I don't know how you have different expectations.
Again, you control who reads your pdf and text files. They aren't stored on Amazon's server, so unless someone has access to them, they can't read your data. You still should not be writing down your passwords.
For example, I might record password in a certain page of my favorite book. I should be able to do this without any fear of it ever being uploaded to or looked at by anyone at Amazon.
I suppose this might be true, you might record your password in a page of your favorite book; but to be fair, you shouldn't. The first rule of password security is to pick something that you will remember and to not write it down.
The expectation of privacy for notes you place in a book only go so far as to how much you control over who reads them. If you don't want anyone reading your notes, write them on a piece of paper (noting the page number of the book file so you can review), and in the kindle file, place a note that simply reads ' I have a handwritten note for this' or some code note that alerts you to such. I see this as preferable to you knowingly posting a note to a file that is held on Amazon's server and then complaining that it was uploaded to an agregator such that no one knows that you even have the book, but others who also have the book will see that a line in their copy that you referenced and many others also referenced as commonly referenced (but only if they opt in to viewing and you opt in to having your notes aggregated).
To clarify, Amazon does not analyze your data unless you give them permission to do so. There is nothing shocking about this. Calling it wrong speaks to a moral imperiative, but such conclusion is based on facts of which your knowledge is incorrect.
Seriously, you don't post something on your third party hosted blog or twitter or social media site (I dont consider twitter to be social media but rather as a method of millions of idiots shouting 'look at me, I want attention about something useless') and then expect privacy, right?
You seem to have understood what I said, and then gone off on a tangent.
I thought I had initially clarified this in the third sentence, 'sexually explicit material is only illegal if it's porn' which explained that sexually explicit material must be with little or no artistic merit in order to be obscene (and thus illegal, under obscenity law). What was unclear?
While I understood why RF could be confused, I also expect that this is/. People without reading comprehension or logic should be the exception, not the expectation.
From your post, I am fairly certain that the use of animals or human waste would by definition make something no longer soft-core (remember, pornography refers to something with little or no artistic merit, not sexuality). While I suppose it would be possible to show sexual use of animals or human waste without being explicit, I can't think of an example without artistic merit. This past weeks episode of family guy shows a dog eating a baby's shit yet for some reason isn't considered to be obscene, despite the baby acknowledging personal pleasure from getting the dog to do so. The dog and baby also acknowledge that they love each other because of this, making the intent erotic (and thus sexual). This aired on prime time television nationally and thus must have artistic merit, because it is not obscene, but contains hard-core sexuality. Soft-core, by definition, when referring to sexuality (but not necessarily pornography), refers to things that are sexual in nature, but that do not show genitals. Hardcore refers to activities depicting sexuality more explicitly than soft-core. Both are adjectives that can describe items that are either obscene (because they are sexual and pornography) or not obscene (because they are not pornography). Hard-core or soft-core sexuality containing artistic merit is not obscene.
Note that soft-core and hard-core do not necessarily refer to sexual things (for example, you can be a hard-core vegetarian, although no one knows why you would want to be)
Depends on your definition of "most places". It's illegal for a woman to expose her breasts in public (excluding for breastfeeding, which is protected in 47 states) in most of the USA. Exceptions are California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Ohio, and Texas.
You must have studied math at the Barack H. Obama School for the Mathemagically Challenged (BHOSMC). I counted 54 states in your total (47 plus 7 exceptions).
Did we suddenly annex 4 new states I don't know about?
Nope, you are just illiterate.
California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Ohio, and Texas are the states in which it is not illegal for a woman to expose her breasts in public.
Pornography is material with little or no artistic merit. Under obscenity laws, yes, porn is illegal. Or to be more accurate, sexually explicit material is only illegal if it's porn (this one off those squares are rectangles arguments), but pornography is not necessarily sexually explicit.
Oligopolies are definitely part of the first couple of weeks of an intro to econ course, and they do not collude for prices. Because there are only a few organizations in an oligopoly, if one member raises prices, the others do not. If one member lowers prices, all others must also lower prices in order to remain competitive. In other words, planning stems from the likely reactions of others (after all, each member of the oligopoly is aware of the actions taken by competitors). If there are material differences between products, it is a differentiated market, not an oligopoly (see phones, a differentiated market, vs cell phones, an oligopoly).
The purpose of collusion is not limited to oligopoly, but it is not to create non-perfect competition; but rather to stabilize prices. In fact, collusion can occur even without a formal or informal agreement between members of an oligopoly, simply as a reaction to market forces. Gas prices are going to rise because the supply is (inherently) limited and a hell of a lot of it is now in the ocean and unusable, not because of collusion. BP and Exxon and Hess and whoever else are not telling OPEC to restrict supply, and OPEC member nations are not releasing extra oil because of the spill; at least until exported oil purchases drop to the point where it is less profitable.
Your choices are to either drive less or pay more, but claiming that collusion is being done to raise prices because of an international crisis is absurd.
To be fair, you have the ability to pop the hood, but it might void the warranty. By which I mean it will void the warranty if you use unauthorized parts or change the spec so you are no longer within factory standards (yes, even for the radio, you can't replace the speakers if they affect the gas mileage, now your headlights don't need to be replaced when they fail 2 years before the end of warranty).
Same as your cellphone. You can tinker however you want, but if that breaks it (or could have broken it), you are SOL.
From airport security perspective, explosive detectors are not, in and of themselves, a threat. The false positive rate (and the possibility of machine purposeful malfunction simply to conduct random searches or test worker reactions to prevent instant beatings, because officers are constantly tested to make sure that they aren't the type of person who will beat people without a damn good defensible reason) creates a situation where positive ID of explosive materials are a reason to move someone outside of everyone else for questioning and physical inspection of contents (possibly).Nevermind that your friend was metalless and shoesless at the time while walking through a metal detector and not having access to the bag. Your military friend was likely flagged as military when tickets were purchased/obtained, which could require an automatic search that was claimed to be random. I know that if I buy tickets for flight the same day as takeoff, every single time, I get randomly selected for additional screening. You make the mistake of assuming that the bag scan was in fact random (it could have been, but who cares unless explosives are actually found?). Your example points out officers acting appropriately based on information that you reasonably should assume that they had but don't in order to make not beating someone look like an accident.
If I was an officer, why would I want to engage in physical violence where there is no need?
This is a basis for my thought process, officers are not generally going around beating people up when they don't have to. People are (or definately should be) of the mindset that police officers are around to help them, not to infringe upon their rights. Officers are not asking you to stay in your car because they want you to step out so they can punch/tase/pepper spray you. They really want you to stay in your car so that they don't have to decide if you are someone who needs to be put in a headlock or if you just aren't smart enough to drive a car but choose to do so anyway. Sometimes they are going to perceive a threat when they might not have to (because you havent pulled a gun yet but you got out of your car and they really can't tell what that bulge in your pocket is and you look kind of angry even though they aren't doing anything at a border search) and you might get your ass beat, but it is not going to happen unless you are doing something to deserve it (like getting out of your car when you have been instructed not to, or refusing to pull over, or brandishing a weapon).
I meant that you should respond to the entire post, not just a random sentence in my post. Then again, you can't respond in context unless you respond to the entire post.
I started today by having an experiment; to see what would happen if I just responded to every half thought dumbass response to any insight I might give. As it turns out, the dumber the respondent, the more they would continue with a back and forth. You and Jeko are king moron. Meanwhile, people who disagree with me mod me down while posting in response as AC. Other people defend me because I make valid points. In under an hour, my original post went from (2) to +5 insightful to -1 troll back to +2 insightful. The very next response was modded offtopic when it was direct response to a personal attack, yet that attack was not modded at all. Clearly metamoderation isn't all its cracked up to be. Luckily, like everyone with good or better karma, I don't care about it.
I'm not going to bother reading any other responses, but trust, they are pretty much all just as stupid as yours.
You are right. It wasn't better 4 years ago when I had both a job and the choice of whether or not to purchase private health care. It certainly wasn't better 10 years ago when I could board a plane and actually take toothpaste with me. I'm just being nostalgic./sarcasm
For the at least 5th time in this topic, no it is not ok for anyone to use force against someone who is not at least perceived as a threat. If you take actions that reasonably would be perceived as a threat, it does not matter if you are non-violent. The act of stepping out of your car in an area where signs are posted stating not to do so will be seen as a threat. How could it possibly not be?
I am insulted at this point as to how many people think otherwise. Put yourself in the officer's shoes.
OK, so 2 people who were not trained how to be neighborhood watchdogs improperly used guns. Amazing, the issue is the idiots both creating a perceived threat when they should not have, yet has nothing to do with police or border search policies.
Actually, I already pointed out that being a cop is safe because they have policies that make them safe. There is no reason that a retail manager can't also take precautions. Police (still) don't go around beating people as step 1; they do it defensively as both a matter of policy and practice. I don't encourage violence against the non-violent as a matter of practice, and your mis-characterization must stem from your lack of understanding. Someone posing a threat is not the same as someone who is non-violent. Two minutes of sitting in your car and waiting for the officer to walk over to speak with you is much better for you and the officer in the sense that the officer doesn't have to decide whether or not you are an idiot or a threat and probably you will be able to travel into or out of the US instead of ending up in a jail cell.
I at no point had that assumption. It would not matter which direction he was heading; it is reasonable to assume that when crossing an international border, you may be randomly or non-randomly searched.
That is a completely different situation from staying in your car. Police aren't walking around gas stations beating people for being there. The law is that police officers get to defend themselves when they find a perceivable threat. Going about your business is the opposite of that.
Slashdot Mirror
At 3 for a penny, thats gonna cost over 3 grand. Also, all of your files would have to be under 25MB. This isnt a solution for 720p video.
While I am not going to waste the time explaining such a simple concept to you, I will give you a hint:
Calendar years begin on January 1. Comparative year over year benchmarks begin whenever the hell you want.
If you are still confused, think about your birthday (lets assume its every year, like most people, but now its June 14 every year) and the fact that you can talk about things that happened since each one and compare them.
If you don't get it now, you really shouldn't be on /.
It depends on the country.
In Japan, the original (silver console) launch, the 20 GB was 20% cheaper than the 60 GB but it did not include the chrome trim, flash card readers, silver logo, and Wi-F, coming in at 60,000 yen. Back then, this was only 270 Euros (at the time, about $375). In the US it launched in two models, one at 499 and one at 599 (the extra C-note brought you from 20 GB to 60GB and got you one HDMI port, one Ethernet port and four USB ports instead of 2 HDMI ports, three Ethernet ports and six USB ports as promised prior to the delay from November to March). In Europe the launch was the same, only euros instead of dollars, which back in 2006 was around $1.4 USD per Euro (so much more expensive). In Singapore, it started at 799 with an 80 GB model including IPTV.
I am going to jump a little off the topic of your post but stay relevant to the article here:
The models that dropped to $400 and below did not include backwards compatability which got many people upset because the launch PS3s are the only way to get upconverted PS2 games. I suppose if anyone wants to prove they really bought a PS3 for the Other OS feature, they had the opportunity to register their PS3 with Sony, which includes space on the registration form that came with the PS3 for comments, including a specific question asking what influenced their decision to purchase. If anyone filled one out and wrote down Linux and PS3 games, they might have a real lawsuit. If they just wrote down linux, there was no need to update the firmware.
Meanwhile, Sony has always been selling the PS3 as an entertainment system. If you have been using it to wash your car, your expectations regarding continuing use are not valid. There is nothing to stop you from using your PS3 to wash your car, but when Sony stops making the same size PS3 and the new PS3 slim doesn't work as well, you can't get mad that one day you might not be able to wash your car anymore. You might have to go to a car wash.
Now, if you replace wash your car with supercomputing research, you have the situation the air force is in (the car wash here is an expensive government contract devoted to air force needs).
The lawsuits noted in the summary are not related to this complaint.
Of the versions you showed, the US version is for Vista, and the EU version is for Mac. Of course the Mac version is more expensive. It's for Mac (which means people will pay a much higher price for the exact same product even if it doesn't work as well as on competitors hardware; also development costs are spread across a smaller marketbase thus raising price), and its in the EU (which means it has VAT). Meanwhile, the same product comparatively, when both version are for vista, shows http://www.amazon.de/Adobe-Creative-Master-Collection-deutsch/dp/B003FSSL5K/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1273780415&sr=1-1
The Vista EU version is 1784 Euro, which is 2230 USD. Its cheaper in Europe for the same product.
This, by the way, is a fairly niche product that hasn't been released yet, and due to its price, will only be purchased by those who have a very real need for it. No one is buying this unless they already have a way to profit from it or they are super rich and spend their money on software instead of cars and vacation houses.
If you don't like European software laws, set up your company in the US (business registrations are along the lines of $250 a year, and if you can't afford that but for some reason need $2500 software packages, you might try another line of business, for example not having one) and set up a European subsidiary that has to follow the software of the parent company in order to gain work. File everything under US GAAP and make sure you have a residence. A US citizen in name owning the company probably wouldn't hurt (keeping you as either an employee or a [non-general] partner. At any rate, keep the liability in the US, and you can use US software no problem. On the other hand, unless you are a fairly large (publicly traded or on the cusp of doing so) company, hiring expats for the sake of saving money on software doesn't really make any sense. While you *can* do this, it definitely won't be worth the time or effort.
Thats sounds much easier...just find a bank of parking meters and have the system point out (by numbered parking spot) which ones are already paid for (even just have a car in them, by weight displacement in the space). In specific areas, it may already be a cell phone app.
Well, it took almost 30 seconds, but you can find your mailing address at www.nysd.uscourts.gov/
Spend a few minutes reviewing your thoughts, and definately go with snail mail if you want anyone to read it.
What?
Anytime you write something down, it is less secure than simply memorizing. How on earth do you jump to the thought that memorization is insecure?
As for your password rules, your IT dept is mentally retarded. Unless someone is trying to brute force your password on a regular basis, your system is absolutely overkill.
The kindle note taking feature is electronic, and you are taking notes on a book that is stored on a server, with a paid for connection where Amazon stores your notes. Why would you possibly think that these notes are not already stored by Amazon? Your notes are by definition shared. Therefore if you are averse to sharing your notes, don't write them down on Amazon's server. This isn't complicated.
I really don't follow your 'huh?'. I have to assume you aren't a kindle user, and that you also have never even glanced at a TOS in your life. The user expectation is that Amazon is not sharing your personal information. Pretty much every TOS for every electronic good or service includes a legally enforceable statement in the TOS that personal information (which would include things written by the user personally) are not going to be shared with 3rd parties without express permission (I'm paraphrasing of course, but this message is included with my toaster, my email, and my kindle all have this...). Seeing as this feature of highlight aggregation (in which you are not identified) for the kindle is opt-in by default (both the aggregation of the your data and the choice to view such), I don't know how you have different expectations.
Again, you control who reads your pdf and text files. They aren't stored on Amazon's server, so unless someone has access to them, they can't read your data. You still should not be writing down your passwords.
For example, I might record password in a certain page of my favorite book.
I should be able to do this without any fear of it ever being uploaded to or looked at by anyone at Amazon.
I suppose this might be true, you might record your password in a page of your favorite book; but to be fair, you shouldn't. The first rule of password security is to pick something that you will remember and to not write it down.
The expectation of privacy for notes you place in a book only go so far as to how much you control over who reads them. If you don't want anyone reading your notes, write them on a piece of paper (noting the page number of the book file so you can review), and in the kindle file, place a note that simply reads ' I have a handwritten note for this' or some code note that alerts you to such. I see this as preferable to you knowingly posting a note to a file that is held on Amazon's server and then complaining that it was uploaded to an agregator such that no one knows that you even have the book, but others who also have the book will see that a line in their copy that you referenced and many others also referenced as commonly referenced (but only if they opt in to viewing and you opt in to having your notes aggregated).
To clarify, Amazon does not analyze your data unless you give them permission to do so. There is nothing shocking about this. Calling it wrong speaks to a moral imperiative, but such conclusion is based on facts of which your knowledge is incorrect.
Seriously, you don't post something on your third party hosted blog or twitter or social media site (I dont consider twitter to be social media but rather as a method of millions of idiots shouting 'look at me, I want attention about something useless') and then expect privacy, right?
I make no appearance of being under such an impression.
At this point, you are just making things up.
What I find entertaining is some students started a facebook page to protest their invasion of privacy. Isn't that IRONIC?
Nope.
That's not irony.
Its hypocrisy.
You seem to have understood what I said, and then gone off on a tangent.
I thought I had initially clarified this in the third sentence, 'sexually explicit material is only illegal if it's porn' which explained that sexually explicit material must be with little or no artistic merit in order to be obscene (and thus illegal, under obscenity law). What was unclear?
While I understood why RF could be confused, I also expect that this is /. People without reading comprehension or logic should be the exception, not the expectation.
From your post, I am fairly certain that the use of animals or human waste would by definition make something no longer soft-core (remember, pornography refers to something with little or no artistic merit, not sexuality). While I suppose it would be possible to show sexual use of animals or human waste without being explicit, I can't think of an example without artistic merit. This past weeks episode of family guy shows a dog eating a baby's shit yet for some reason isn't considered to be obscene, despite the baby acknowledging personal pleasure from getting the dog to do so. The dog and baby also acknowledge that they love each other because of this, making the intent erotic (and thus sexual). This aired on prime time television nationally and thus must have artistic merit, because it is not obscene, but contains hard-core sexuality. Soft-core, by definition, when referring to sexuality (but not necessarily pornography), refers to things that are sexual in nature, but that do not show genitals. Hardcore refers to activities depicting sexuality more explicitly than soft-core. Both are adjectives that can describe items that are either obscene (because they are sexual and pornography) or not obscene (because they are not pornography). Hard-core or soft-core sexuality containing artistic merit is not obscene.
Note that soft-core and hard-core do not necessarily refer to sexual things (for example, you can be a hard-core vegetarian, although no one knows why you would want to be)
Error. Tautological argument.
No, Pornography is legal. Obscenity is illegal. Please go back and review the Miller decision.
I didn't say that pornagraphy, in and of itself, is illegal.
Directly, I stated that 'Under obscenity laws, yes, porn is illegal' (ie if porn is obscene, it is illegal).
I see how you could be confused though.
Breastfeeding and exposing breasts in public are two different things.
Dumbass.
Depends on your definition of "most places". It's illegal for a woman to expose her breasts in public (excluding for breastfeeding, which is protected in 47 states) in most of the USA. Exceptions are California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Ohio, and Texas.
You must have studied math at the Barack H. Obama School for the Mathemagically Challenged (BHOSMC). I counted 54 states in your total (47 plus 7 exceptions).
Did we suddenly annex 4 new states I don't know about?
Nope, you are just illiterate.
California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Ohio, and Texas are the states in which it is not illegal for a woman to expose her breasts in public.
47 states protect the right to breastfeed.
Thanks for playing.
Pornography is material with little or no artistic merit. Under obscenity laws, yes, porn is illegal. Or to be more accurate, sexually explicit material is only illegal if it's porn (this one off those squares are rectangles arguments), but pornography is not necessarily sexually explicit.
Did you go to UGA?
Oligopolies are definitely part of the first couple of weeks of an intro to econ course, and they do not collude for prices. Because there are only a few organizations in an oligopoly, if one member raises prices, the others do not. If one member lowers prices, all others must also lower prices in order to remain competitive. In other words, planning stems from the likely reactions of others (after all, each member of the oligopoly is aware of the actions taken by competitors). If there are material differences between products, it is a differentiated market, not an oligopoly (see phones, a differentiated market, vs cell phones, an oligopoly).
The purpose of collusion is not limited to oligopoly, but it is not to create non-perfect competition; but rather to stabilize prices. In fact, collusion can occur even without a formal or informal agreement between members of an oligopoly, simply as a reaction to market forces. Gas prices are going to rise because the supply is (inherently) limited and a hell of a lot of it is now in the ocean and unusable, not because of collusion. BP and Exxon and Hess and whoever else are not telling OPEC to restrict supply, and OPEC member nations are not releasing extra oil because of the spill; at least until exported oil purchases drop to the point where it is less profitable.
Your choices are to either drive less or pay more, but claiming that collusion is being done to raise prices because of an international crisis is absurd.
To be fair, you have the ability to pop the hood, but it might void the warranty. By which I mean it will void the warranty if you use unauthorized parts or change the spec so you are no longer within factory standards (yes, even for the radio, you can't replace the speakers if they affect the gas mileage, now your headlights don't need to be replaced when they fail 2 years before the end of warranty).
Same as your cellphone. You can tinker however you want, but if that breaks it (or could have broken it), you are SOL.
Thats a pretty bad example.
From airport security perspective, explosive detectors are not, in and of themselves, a threat. The false positive rate (and the possibility of machine purposeful malfunction simply to conduct random searches or test worker reactions to prevent instant beatings, because officers are constantly tested to make sure that they aren't the type of person who will beat people without a damn good defensible reason) creates a situation where positive ID of explosive materials are a reason to move someone outside of everyone else for questioning and physical inspection of contents (possibly).Nevermind that your friend was metalless and shoesless at the time while walking through a metal detector and not having access to the bag. Your military friend was likely flagged as military when tickets were purchased/obtained, which could require an automatic search that was claimed to be random. I know that if I buy tickets for flight the same day as takeoff, every single time, I get randomly selected for additional screening. You make the mistake of assuming that the bag scan was in fact random (it could have been, but who cares unless explosives are actually found?). Your example points out officers acting appropriately based on information that you reasonably should assume that they had but don't in order to make not beating someone look like an accident.
If I was an officer, why would I want to engage in physical violence where there is no need?
This is a basis for my thought process, officers are not generally going around beating people up when they don't have to. People are (or definately should be) of the mindset that police officers are around to help them, not to infringe upon their rights. Officers are not asking you to stay in your car because they want you to step out so they can punch/tase/pepper spray you. They really want you to stay in your car so that they don't have to decide if you are someone who needs to be put in a headlock or if you just aren't smart enough to drive a car but choose to do so anyway. Sometimes they are going to perceive a threat when they might not have to (because you havent pulled a gun yet but you got out of your car and they really can't tell what that bulge in your pocket is and you look kind of angry even though they aren't doing anything at a border search) and you might get your ass beat, but it is not going to happen unless you are doing something to deserve it (like getting out of your car when you have been instructed not to, or refusing to pull over, or brandishing a weapon).
I meant that you should respond to the entire post, not just a random sentence in my post. Then again, you can't respond in context unless you respond to the entire post.
I started today by having an experiment; to see what would happen if I just responded to every half thought dumbass response to any insight I might give. As it turns out, the dumber the respondent, the more they would continue with a back and forth. You and Jeko are king moron. Meanwhile, people who disagree with me mod me down while posting in response as AC. Other people defend me because I make valid points. In under an hour, my original post went from (2) to +5 insightful to -1 troll back to +2 insightful. The very next response was modded offtopic when it was direct response to a personal attack, yet that attack was not modded at all. Clearly metamoderation isn't all its cracked up to be. Luckily, like everyone with good or better karma, I don't care about it.
I'm not going to bother reading any other responses, but trust, they are pretty much all just as stupid as yours.
You are right. It wasn't better 4 years ago when I had both a job and the choice of whether or not to purchase private health care. It certainly wasn't better 10 years ago when I could board a plane and actually take toothpaste with me. I'm just being nostalgic./sarcasm
For the at least 5th time in this topic, no it is not ok for anyone to use force against someone who is not at least perceived as a threat. If you take actions that reasonably would be perceived as a threat, it does not matter if you are non-violent. The act of stepping out of your car in an area where signs are posted stating not to do so will be seen as a threat. How could it possibly not be?
I am insulted at this point as to how many people think otherwise. Put yourself in the officer's shoes.
OK, so 2 people who were not trained how to be neighborhood watchdogs improperly used guns. Amazing, the issue is the idiots both creating a perceived threat when they should not have, yet has nothing to do with police or border search policies.
Way to be offtopic.
Actually, I already pointed out that being a cop is safe because they have policies that make them safe. There is no reason that a retail manager can't also take precautions. Police (still) don't go around beating people as step 1; they do it defensively as both a matter of policy and practice. I don't encourage violence against the non-violent as a matter of practice, and your mis-characterization must stem from your lack of understanding. Someone posing a threat is not the same as someone who is non-violent. Two minutes of sitting in your car and waiting for the officer to walk over to speak with you is much better for you and the officer in the sense that the officer doesn't have to decide whether or not you are an idiot or a threat and probably you will be able to travel into or out of the US instead of ending up in a jail cell.
I at no point had that assumption. It would not matter which direction he was heading; it is reasonable to assume that when crossing an international border, you may be randomly or non-randomly searched.
That is a completely different situation from staying in your car. Police aren't walking around gas stations beating people for being there. The law is that police officers get to defend themselves when they find a perceivable threat. Going about your business is the opposite of that.