...how long it takes before Big Brother decides he can use this to track all of the "troublemakers" in large crowds (everyone is a troublemaker, according to the Gov't).
it's their job to take into account the Constitution and court precedent and make their argument based on logic
No, their job is to interpret the Constitution when a major question arises. Their job doesn't require them take into account precedent, though they usually do. (http://civilliberty.about.com/od/historyprofiles/g/stare_decisis.htm)
The principle of judicial review was established by Marbury V. Madison in 1803 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States). It didn't establish Stare Decisis (precedents).
As a rule, lower courts have to abide by the decisions handed down from a higher court, but a court can reverse a decision it made earlier. Not only this, but a decision handed down in a district only applies in that district (however, other districts may adopt the reasoning). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis)
The SCOTUS has jurisdiction over all of the federal courts (not the state ones). However, SCOTUS decisions are usually applied to state courts via 14th amendment mechanisms. The SCOTUS usually does respect decisions it made previously, but there is nothing to prevent it from reversing its stance. (http://www.rbs2.com/overrule.pdf)
It wouldn't be the first time people have masturbated to pictures of me. As long as I don't have to see it, I don't really care. Don't forget, I used to work for a porn company. No much really scares me any more. If they're being distributed, I want a percentage of the profits though. No one gets into porn for the beauty of the human form, the get into it for the money. Since I'm not getting paid for the pictures being taken by the TSA, I'm more than a bit offended. What the folks do in their little viewing booth is their own business.
I'm reasonably sure the TSA isn't selling scans of people for a profit (or at all). You may want to consider filing suit against airports, banks, and gas stations, since they're usually all equipped with cameras, and aren't typically constrained by regulations about how to handle that stuff.
Likewise, them having an image of you could be considered in the same manner as someone taking a picture of a known landmark (Eiffel Tower comes to mind). Sure, the owners of the landmark will scream about wanting royalties, but as long as the picture isn't being used for commercial purposes (fair use), there aren't any grounds for to bring suit.
That said, I don't particularly cotton to the way things are being done in airports and other "secure" environments. That's why I'm a proud contributor to airlines' falling profit margins (contributing to their fall, not to their survival).
1. Given to or expressing lust; lecherous.
2. Exciting sexual desires; salacious.
Viewing of my genitalia has been cause for lust and has excited sexual desire. Even a normal mask wouldn't hide my full package (as it were). In that, it could be believed that a viewer would find it sexually exciting to view a nude image of me, in a normal photograph or a TSA/DHS authorized scan. Therefore it could be argued that the image of me in such a manner does fall under the cited laws.
So, what you're saying is that if you were the one in the scanner, your co-workers wouldn't have been making fun of your small dick, but would've been masturbating to it, and you wouldn't have been fired?
It's illegal for a woman to expose her breasts in public (excluding for breastfeeding, which is protected in 47 states)
So, you're saying that breastfeeding in public is allowed in 47 states...
It's illegal for a woman to expose her breasts (except for the case of breastfeeding, with condition). You are incorrectly asserting some statement about breasts after the main point of the sentence (which is about nudity only) is the only idea expressed, and that's incorrect.
Exceptions are California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Ohio, and Texas.
According to this, it's illegal in 7 states to breastfeed in public.
Nope. You are having trouble with the parenthetical statement. When in doubt, erase what's in parenthesis, then read it again. IF you delete everything in the parenthesis, the meaning is absolutely clear (thought technically inaccurate). The parenthetical statement is a footnote regarding the legality of breastfeeding being an exception to the "no breasts" rule.
That you were never taught how to properly read parenthetical statements doesn't mean that there was any ambiguity at all in the statement. And even if there was ambiguity, you chose to read the statement in the only impossible way, when there was another obvious reading that would be possible. That makes you an offtopic troll posting flamebait.
You would know that I don't know how to read a parenthetical statement, wouldn't you? I'm awestruck at your skill at word-smithing and grammar-handling, and evaluating the skills of others, all based on a single occurrence of someone misreading a statement. Where ever did you get your BE in English? The City College of San Francisco?
Illiteracy != missing a clause or misreading it. Most of you guys seem kind of illiterate, since I admitted to misreading it.
Okay, apparently I misread the original statement. It was ambiguous to me.
I misread it. As a result, the statement was ambiguous to me. I don't know how much simpler I can make this phrase. Let me try: Misread something, interpreted based on misreading, interpretation incorrect.
No, 47 states allow women to expose their breasts strictly for the purpose of breastfeeding. Of those 47, 7 of those allow women to expose their breasts under any circumstances. 43 states do not allow women to expose their breasts, and of those, 3 do not make an exception for breastfeeding.
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.
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.
Nice try.
It's illegal for a woman to expose her breasts in public (excluding for breastfeeding, which is protected in 47 states)
So, you're saying that breastfeeding in public is allowed in 47 states...
Now, let's look at your exceptions...
Exceptions are California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Ohio, and Texas.
According to this, it's illegal in 7 states to breastfeed in public.
For those of us who don't subscribe to the 57-state theory, 47+7 = 54 (which is 4 more states than I recall we had).
Check please!
Okay, apparently I misread the original statement. It was ambiguous to me.
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.
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.
Nice try.
It's illegal for a woman to expose her breasts in public (excluding for breastfeeding, which is protected in 47 states)
So, you're saying that breastfeeding in public is allowed in 47 states...
Now, let's look at your exceptions...
Exceptions are California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Ohio, and Texas.
According to this, it's illegal in 7 states to breastfeed in public.
For those of us who don't subscribe to the 57-state theory, 47+7 = 54 (which is 4 more states than I recall we had).
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?
Private industry is doing all sorts of analysis of you as a consumer to provide you better service and to let them make more profit. But the same consumer that's okay with private industry doing that is not okay, in a knee-jerk reaction, with government doing that.
Because private industry doesn't have the power to legally issue arrest warrants, execution warrants, and other controls over your freedom. The government does.
With private industry, we have a nominal choice of whether or not to participate in their dealings as a consumer, to deal with their competitor, or to start our own competition. That said, the government has a monopoly on governing. If we don't like it, we don't get to vote with our feet. If we want to sue it, it has to agree to be sued (I'm amazed it ever allows this to occur, actually). If we don't like it, we can't just start our own government (well, we can, but it won't be long before the government you didn't like sends a lot of nice soldiers to visit you and politely ask that your shareholders all sell their interest to it). Our only recourse is to attempt to change it from within, which is akin to a virus trying to change a live animal to do what it wants.
1 - The name of our country is the United States of America. The citizens of this country are properly referred to as "Americans"
"Properly", no you're not. You're citizens of the US. There are two continents and numerous islands in the Western Hemisphere, pretty much all of them (at least on the mainland) inhabited by Americans of one form or another; North, Central, and South Americans. However, as the US hasn't invaded any of them recently (besides Grenada), you can be forgiven your lack of awareness. Frankly, I prefer the term Yanqui to refer to citizens of the US. As demographics are going there just now, you'll all soon be speaking Spanish anyway (not that there's anything wrong with that; it's a beautiful language). Bonus: it really pees off the Southern states' Yanquis.
Actually, it really pisses off the Southern States to even be lumped in with the US. Don't forget they tried to leave and were forced back in at gunpoint.
The nice thing about these types of browser games is that they require real time to advance, meaning the game is playing even while you are not. I saw that your resources keep growing in the game and you can easily choose how much and how often you check the game. On the top it says my city is protected for the next 7 days until April 28th, and if I click on it theres a menu screen for Incoming Attacks (which will probably get populated if someone chooses to attack me). Perfect for playing even if you don't have that much time for it - just check every few days and issue some orders to queue.
Another such "real-time" game I have played is a trucking simulator Trukz, where you cant drive your truck more than a 10-11 hours at a time. Then you have to wait that time to drive more, and unless you want to you aren't really required to get to the company stuff or other aspects in the game.
I wonder why more traditional games haven't had such systems much. There's auctions in MMO's but it's more like a side-effect of the system, not a purpose. Otherwise your character/nation/whatever doesn't evolve at all if you aren't playing.
Corncob 3d had a "feature" like this, where if you destroyed allied sites, you were thrown in the stockade for so a few days. Those days were in real-time. Of course, back in the days of DOS, and without NTP, intarwebs, user-access/root-access, changing the time and cheating this wasn't that hard...just had to remember to change the clock back.
Jean Plantureux, the political cartoonist from France's Le Monde newspaper, came to talk to my college a few years back and explained that due to anti-Nazi laws they couldn't draw any swastikas on anyone. So what they do if they want to say somebody's a Nazi is they draw them with an armband with a white circle on it. Everyone knows exactly what the white circle means.
I think this must be the artistic version of the euphemism treadmill, only it's forced by legal frameworks.
Only infinitely far from a point source in an unbounded medium, or if you're talking about compressional or transverse waves on a 1D object (plane waves in an infinite half-space; naiive guitar string waves, etc.). Otherwise, sound is intrinsically 3D, and is much harder to model accurately (usually) than electromagnetic waves, because things like Lamb waves, Love waves, etc. lead to the need for tensor descriptions rather than the usual vector descriptions.
Love waves? Is that what they call the vibration mode my bed takes when I'm engaging in coitus?
I'm not even going to conjecture on Lamb waves, beyond "Those poor ovines."
Or, since the antenna would need to be somewhat exposed, just make a "sleeve" that blocks RF?
Just as a show of good faith, leave it off for trips to work and pop it on during long trips? Or just leave it on and claim you're a hermit?
I was thinking the same thing, but wouldn't it be simpler to simply break the antenna, and/or overpower the receiver with some DC power?
If someone wanted a little project, and it didn't prevent the vehicle from working, why not just uninstall the GPS? Of course, they'll probably make it some kind of federal felony like it is with odometer tampering to do this sort of thing.
Slashdot Mirror
...how long it takes before Big Brother decides he can use this to track all of the "troublemakers" in large crowds (everyone is a troublemaker, according to the Gov't).
it's their job to take into account the Constitution and court precedent and make their argument based on logic
No, their job is to interpret the Constitution when a major question arises. Their job doesn't require them take into account precedent, though they usually do. (http://civilliberty.about.com/od/historyprofiles/g/stare_decisis.htm)
The principle of judicial review was established by Marbury V. Madison in 1803 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States). It didn't establish Stare Decisis (precedents).
As a rule, lower courts have to abide by the decisions handed down from a higher court, but a court can reverse a decision it made earlier. Not only this, but a decision handed down in a district only applies in that district (however, other districts may adopt the reasoning). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis)
The SCOTUS has jurisdiction over all of the federal courts (not the state ones). However, SCOTUS decisions are usually applied to state courts via 14th amendment mechanisms. The SCOTUS usually does respect decisions it made previously, but there is nothing to prevent it from reversing its stance. (http://www.rbs2.com/overrule.pdf)
It wouldn't be the first time people have masturbated to pictures of me. As long as I don't have to see it, I don't really care. Don't forget, I used to work for a porn company. No much really scares me any more. If they're being distributed, I want a percentage of the profits though. No one gets into porn for the beauty of the human form, the get into it for the money. Since I'm not getting paid for the pictures being taken by the TSA, I'm more than a bit offended. What the folks do in their little viewing booth is their own business.
I'm reasonably sure the TSA isn't selling scans of people for a profit (or at all). You may want to consider filing suit against airports, banks, and gas stations, since they're usually all equipped with cameras, and aren't typically constrained by regulations about how to handle that stuff.
Likewise, them having an image of you could be considered in the same manner as someone taking a picture of a known landmark (Eiffel Tower comes to mind). Sure, the owners of the landmark will scream about wanting royalties, but as long as the picture isn't being used for commercial purposes (fair use), there aren't any grounds for to bring suit.
That said, I don't particularly cotton to the way things are being done in airports and other "secure" environments. That's why I'm a proud contributor to airlines' falling profit margins (contributing to their fall, not to their survival).
1. Given to or expressing lust; lecherous. 2. Exciting sexual desires; salacious.
Viewing of my genitalia has been cause for lust and has excited sexual desire. Even a normal mask wouldn't hide my full package (as it were). In that, it could be believed that a viewer would find it sexually exciting to view a nude image of me, in a normal photograph or a TSA/DHS authorized scan. Therefore it could be argued that the image of me in such a manner does fall under the cited laws.
So, what you're saying is that if you were the one in the scanner, your co-workers wouldn't have been making fun of your small dick, but would've been masturbating to it, and you wouldn't have been fired?
If you just shrugged it off then only your coworkers would know you have a small dick. Now the whole world knows.
This is called the Streisand Effect with Negrin Corollary.
It's illegal for a woman to expose her breasts in public (excluding for breastfeeding, which is protected in 47 states)
So, you're saying that breastfeeding in public is allowed in 47 states...
It's illegal for a woman to expose her breasts (except for the case of breastfeeding, with condition). You are incorrectly asserting some statement about breasts after the main point of the sentence (which is about nudity only) is the only idea expressed, and that's incorrect.
Exceptions are California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Ohio, and Texas.
According to this, it's illegal in 7 states to breastfeed in public.
Nope. You are having trouble with the parenthetical statement. When in doubt, erase what's in parenthesis, then read it again. IF you delete everything in the parenthesis, the meaning is absolutely clear (thought technically inaccurate). The parenthetical statement is a footnote regarding the legality of breastfeeding being an exception to the "no breasts" rule. That you were never taught how to properly read parenthetical statements doesn't mean that there was any ambiguity at all in the statement. And even if there was ambiguity, you chose to read the statement in the only impossible way, when there was another obvious reading that would be possible. That makes you an offtopic troll posting flamebait.
You would know that I don't know how to read a parenthetical statement, wouldn't you? I'm awestruck at your skill at word-smithing and grammar-handling, and evaluating the skills of others, all based on a single occurrence of someone misreading a statement. Where ever did you get your BE in English? The City College of San Francisco?
Okay, apparently I misread the original statement. It was ambiguous to me.
I misread it. As a result, the statement was ambiguous to me. I don't know how much simpler I can make this phrase. Let me try: Misread something, interpreted based on misreading, interpretation incorrect.
Does this compute yet?
No, 47 states allow women to expose their breasts strictly for the purpose of breastfeeding. Of those 47, 7 of those allow women to expose their breasts under any circumstances. 43 states do not allow women to expose their breasts, and of those, 3 do not make an exception for breastfeeding.
it's 40 (exemption for breastfeeding) + 7 (allowed, period) + 3 (not allowed, period).
My statement made perfect sense to me, though maybe I'm tripping over something specific to American English.
Point taken. I had misread the original statement as stating that 47 states allowed it, and 7 with exceptions allowing for it.
Salt. It's got electrolytes.
Isn't that what Brawndo is made of?
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.
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.
Nice try.
It's illegal for a woman to expose her breasts in public (excluding for breastfeeding, which is protected in 47 states)
So, you're saying that breastfeeding in public is allowed in 47 states... Now, let's look at your exceptions...
Exceptions are California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Ohio, and Texas.
According to this, it's illegal in 7 states to breastfeed in public. For those of us who don't subscribe to the 57-state theory, 47+7 = 54 (which is 4 more states than I recall we had). Check please!
Okay, apparently I misread the original statement. It was ambiguous to me.
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.
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.
Nice try.
It's illegal for a woman to expose her breasts in public (excluding for breastfeeding, which is protected in 47 states)
So, you're saying that breastfeeding in public is allowed in 47 states...
Now, let's look at your exceptions...
Exceptions are California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New York, Ohio, and Texas.
According to this, it's illegal in 7 states to breastfeed in public.
For those of us who don't subscribe to the 57-state theory, 47+7 = 54 (which is 4 more states than I recall we had).
Check please!
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?
Private industry is doing all sorts of analysis of you as a consumer to provide you better service and to let them make more profit. But the same consumer that's okay with private industry doing that is not okay, in a knee-jerk reaction, with government doing that.
Because private industry doesn't have the power to legally issue arrest warrants, execution warrants, and other controls over your freedom. The government does.
With private industry, we have a nominal choice of whether or not to participate in their dealings as a consumer, to deal with their competitor, or to start our own competition. That said, the government has a monopoly on governing. If we don't like it, we don't get to vote with our feet. If we want to sue it, it has to agree to be sued (I'm amazed it ever allows this to occur, actually). If we don't like it, we can't just start our own government (well, we can, but it won't be long before the government you didn't like sends a lot of nice soldiers to visit you and politely ask that your shareholders all sell their interest to it). Our only recourse is to attempt to change it from within, which is akin to a virus trying to change a live animal to do what it wants.
1 - The name of our country is the United States of America. The citizens of this country are properly referred to as "Americans"
"Properly", no you're not. You're citizens of the US. There are two continents and numerous islands in the Western Hemisphere, pretty much all of them (at least on the mainland) inhabited by Americans of one form or another; North, Central, and South Americans. However, as the US hasn't invaded any of them recently (besides Grenada), you can be forgiven your lack of awareness. Frankly, I prefer the term Yanqui to refer to citizens of the US. As demographics are going there just now, you'll all soon be speaking Spanish anyway (not that there's anything wrong with that; it's a beautiful language). Bonus: it really pees off the Southern states' Yanquis.
Actually, it really pisses off the Southern States to even be lumped in with the US. Don't forget they tried to leave and were forced back in at gunpoint.
Uh...so where IS the article? The summary just has a bunch of links to random, related websites.
Schreibman Port Just saying.
I just keep screaming that the Steel Sky is falling, but no one is listening!
He means a cosmetic failure. Or does he?
He means a COSMIC failure. The universe will implode when this happens.
The nice thing about these types of browser games is that they require real time to advance, meaning the game is playing even while you are not. I saw that your resources keep growing in the game and you can easily choose how much and how often you check the game. On the top it says my city is protected for the next 7 days until April 28th, and if I click on it theres a menu screen for Incoming Attacks (which will probably get populated if someone chooses to attack me). Perfect for playing even if you don't have that much time for it - just check every few days and issue some orders to queue.
Another such "real-time" game I have played is a trucking simulator Trukz, where you cant drive your truck more than a 10-11 hours at a time. Then you have to wait that time to drive more, and unless you want to you aren't really required to get to the company stuff or other aspects in the game.
I wonder why more traditional games haven't had such systems much. There's auctions in MMO's but it's more like a side-effect of the system, not a purpose. Otherwise your character/nation/whatever doesn't evolve at all if you aren't playing.
Corncob 3d had a "feature" like this, where if you destroyed allied sites, you were thrown in the stockade for so a few days. Those days were in real-time. Of course, back in the days of DOS, and without NTP, intarwebs, user-access/root-access, changing the time and cheating this wasn't that hard...just had to remember to change the clock back.
I think they'll just name it Mt. Unpronounceable.
The more you tighten your grip, Copyright Dogs, the more content will slip through your fingers.
Jean Plantureux, the political cartoonist from France's Le Monde newspaper, came to talk to my college a few years back and explained that due to anti-Nazi laws they couldn't draw any swastikas on anyone. So what they do if they want to say somebody's a Nazi is they draw them with an armband with a white circle on it. Everyone knows exactly what the white circle means.
I think this must be the artistic version of the euphemism treadmill, only it's forced by legal frameworks.
There actually is: http://www.askvg.com/insert-classic-menubar-and-toolbar-in-microsoft-office-2007/
Try posting one that gives this functionality for free.
I doubt a lot of people want to pay money for the same functionality that they used to get for free.
Only infinitely far from a point source in an unbounded medium, or if you're talking about compressional or transverse waves on a 1D object (plane waves in an infinite half-space; naiive guitar string waves, etc.). Otherwise, sound is intrinsically 3D, and is much harder to model accurately (usually) than electromagnetic waves, because things like Lamb waves, Love waves, etc. lead to the need for tensor descriptions rather than the usual vector descriptions.
Love waves? Is that what they call the vibration mode my bed takes when I'm engaging in coitus?
I'm not even going to conjecture on Lamb waves, beyond "Those poor ovines."
This is great. When do we get one of these in the US?
Just find where the receiver/transceiver is and pop on a Faraday Cage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage
Or, since the antenna would need to be somewhat exposed, just make a "sleeve" that blocks RF?
Just as a show of good faith, leave it off for trips to work and pop it on during long trips? Or just leave it on and claim you're a hermit?
I was thinking the same thing, but wouldn't it be simpler to simply break the antenna, and/or overpower the receiver with some DC power?
If someone wanted a little project, and it didn't prevent the vehicle from working, why not just uninstall the GPS? Of course, they'll probably make it some kind of federal felony like it is with odometer tampering to do this sort of thing.
Another thought: How would it report back?