I've looked into this in my own state (I'm assuming they vary). You are spot on for my state, I can decline all field tests and expect to go back to the station. If I still refuse there then I am boned.
Interestingly, the only test that my state can compel is done by blood draw. And that can only be done through court order.
I am also NAL. But I am an adult that enjoys driving and also enjoys alcohol. Though I don't do both at the same time, it is good to know what the relevant laws are.
Generally it is. It is also codified in the State general law. Which is your responsibility to be aware of.
Note I used the term process not simply application. If your licensing state is an implied consent state you are probably made aware of it at the time you obtained a license. That was nice of them. If you drive into another state you are expected to comply with local laws. As I'm not aware of any state that posts the entirety of their general law at all points of entry, it is a reasonable expectation that the onus is on the driver to be familiar with the laws of the other state.
Would you expect to be able to contest speeding tickets because the Speed Limit signs didn't explicitly say that speeding is illegal? Would you expect out of state drivers to be exempt from seat belt regulations because nobody knocked on their window and informed them?
Dogs and cats are fundamentally different animals. They communicate and behave differently.
The toilet example: cat's are already sort of wired to seek out a remote place to bury their poo (like people). Dogs OTOH pass beneficial gut flora to other dogs by eating each others poo. We desire the poo concealing behavior because it is more convenient and more like our own.
I kind of want to generalize your last point. Specific examples of behavior may not really indicate "intelligence". Especially from animals that have been intentionally bred for thousands of years to coexist with us. The animals are so fundamentally different from each other, how can you really measure their intelligence?. Intelligence in humans is already a pretty fuzzy topic that we can't quite agree how to measure, trying to do so in other animals seems challenging.
you make it sound like these checkpoints exist on every major street in America. I've lived in four different States in/near some of the largest cities in those States and I have literally never seen one in my life.
I am sure that they happen in some parts of the country. But I'm also sure some States do not use these. That's why I didn't say all States require this.
Except if you're driving out of state, you didn't give consent of anything to that state.
Legally, you probably did as soon as you operated a motor vehicle in that State. This depends on the wording of the local law, but every one I've ever read says you provide consent as soon as you operate a vehicle within the State. Implied consent laws vary by state, so if the state you are operating in has implied consent laws then you are subject to it.
A condition of States honoring out of state licenses is that the drivers be subject to the local laws. An out of State license (even from a state without implied consent) does not offer any protection from the local State laws.
Individual rights are routinely restricted in cases where the State has a significant interest in preventing injury, damage, loss of life, and disruption of services. Security at a courthouse is necessary for the continuity of government service, and is not staffed by the TSA. Most courthouses are (I think) protected by special divisions of local Sheriff's Departments. Equating courthouse security with TSA is like equating them with mall security guards. Similar equipment, totally different people.
Sobriety tests usually aren't Fourth Amendment violations. Most states include some verbage about implied consent in their motor vehicle licensing process. Basically if you hold a drivers license and are operating a motor vehicle you have already provided consent to submit to a sobriety test at the request of police. Most States do happen to require their police to have grounds for suspicion before they ask to you do a sobriety test, but you have already given your implied permission.
Searching vehicles, checking ID's of passengers, and other things that happen at these checkpoints may very well be Fourth Amendment violations though.
Unfortunately you are right. And I find it somewhat disappointing that this is so true for video games but less true for other mediums.
Controversial books see sales boosted because of their controversy. Same with films to some extent. Games lack that level of protection that we offer to mediums we consider "art", and are forced to buckle to criticism like this. Maybe it's because the industry is driven by the retailers, I don't really know. I expect that we will not see games progress as a storytelling medium unless/until retailers, publishers, and developers are willing to take stand by their controversial material.
There are always antagonists. These aren't always people, but there is always something that the protagonists are set against. That's what makes a compelling narrative. i.e. Tom Hanks vs. abandonment, isolation, and loneliness (respectively).
A narrative can exist without a "bad guy" embodied by a person. But stories need an antagonist. Otherwise there is action and thus no story to tell. Biopics and adult films fill separate niches that happen to use the same medium.
I would welcome that. Once the premiums are balanced with the cost of the risk (plus profit) the product becomes more reasonable IMO. At that point the customer has the real option of either not taking insurance and managing risk themselves, or taking insurance and not having to worry about saving to manage risk. The cost of that risk management service is the profit taken by the insurer. If that profit margin is too high, customers will leave and manage their own risk. It's balancing.
The concern I have now is that I know my premiums do not reflect my personal risk. My premiums represent the shared risk of every member of my employers small group plan. This might be a fair exchange, it might not. I don't know, because my insurers are not allowed to tailor their coverage to my unique situation (unique in that every persons situation is unique).
So long as there is competition between insurers there will be lower rates for the less risky customers. If the risk is balanced correctly with the cost, insurers are still basically printing money.
I assume you are referring to the 3 hour long queue to go into the security screening area. That almost completely unsecured part of the airport that requires no screening to enter, yet is chock full of juicy infidelicious westerners? Metaphorically plumped up much like the turkeys they are intent on consuming.
I learned the Reid Technique in the span of about a month.
Ha! I think I mostly learned Reid from Law & Order reruns. I just had no idea I'd learned it until I actually got some formal training in it.
Seriously though, a problem that we would face with the Isrealification of our airport security model is that there is not a great deal of empirical evidence indicating which techniques are better than others. There is (unfortunately) a lot of research indicating that even experienced LEO's have deception detection rates at slightly better than chance levels; support from the community is mainly anecdotal without a lot of hard data.
Reid for example is a wonderful tool for information eduction and eliciting a confession, but really works best as part of a full investigation and when the interviewer/interrogator has a reasonable belief that the subject is probably guilty. Reid might not be so great in an airport security setting with such low target rates (ratio of bad guys to good guys). The question becomes, which techniques do we deploy?
Fortunately, TSA seems not to require any substantial evidence supporting a methodology before they deploy it. I think this is going to lead to the Isrealification of our airports long before we have the empirical evidence to justify it.
I'm afraid I don't have much advance physics, so I may be misunderstanding the problem so this question might be irrelevant.
Does this mean that the problem is that we cannot establish a system in which we can fail to observe the electron but still have knowledge of it's behavior?
I can grasp the oft described concept that the particle's behavior is influenced by our observation. I am failing to grasp why our observation or non observation has any effect on the particle at all.
If anyone can explain this to a non-physics type, I may reward you with future modpoints./p?
I would hope that the user can control that. Personally I think I would prefer to have to explicitly authorize every single transaction.
I think it could be done conveniently though. Either by having the user up an app real quick to enable the RFID chip, or by prompting for a PIN whenever a transaction is attempted.
Yeah, I like the big sandboxy games because since there is soooo much to do I don't feel compelled to do every little thing. I can follow quests that interest me, ignore the ones that don't, and I still feel like I get a full experience.
It was on a humanities class I took in my final semester. I didn't care about the knowledge, I only needed credit for completing the class. I miscalculated the minimum amount of work I needed to do to prepare for a test, and was really freaked out I would fail the class I be forced to enroll in another semester just to complete a humanities requirement. So I tucked my textbook under my shirt and took a bathroom break.
I am a little ashamed. Mostly embarrassed that I miscalculated so poorly. Given the moral and ethical greyness that I've come to expect in the adult world though, I am not sure that I can say that I wouldn't do it again in the same situation. I can't even recall what class this was for, so I don't feel that I robbed myself of any learning. In fact I think it taught me a greater lesson about being prepared, and gives me a great story to pontificate on when I lecture my kids about academic honesty.
Sounded like they didn't want other companies selling boosters. They want to be the only ones capable of providing such devices. Or even eliminate the concept of the boosters entirely, and move towards funneling calls over the customers broadband connection.
That allows a business model like Verizon's, where they will be more than happy to charge you for the device to send their calls over your own internet connection.
Slashdot Mirror
I've looked into this in my own state (I'm assuming they vary). You are spot on for my state, I can decline all field tests and expect to go back to the station. If I still refuse there then I am boned.
Interestingly, the only test that my state can compel is done by blood draw. And that can only be done through court order.
I am also NAL. But I am an adult that enjoys driving and also enjoys alcohol. Though I don't do both at the same time, it is good to know what the relevant laws are.
Generally it is. It is also codified in the State general law. Which is your responsibility to be aware of.
Note I used the term process not simply application. If your licensing state is an implied consent state you are probably made aware of it at the time you obtained a license. That was nice of them. If you drive into another state you are expected to comply with local laws. As I'm not aware of any state that posts the entirety of their general law at all points of entry, it is a reasonable expectation that the onus is on the driver to be familiar with the laws of the other state.
Would you expect to be able to contest speeding tickets because the Speed Limit signs didn't explicitly say that speeding is illegal? Would you expect out of state drivers to be exempt from seat belt regulations because nobody knocked on their window and informed them?
Dogs and cats are fundamentally different animals. They communicate and behave differently.
The toilet example: cat's are already sort of wired to seek out a remote place to bury their poo (like people). Dogs OTOH pass beneficial gut flora to other dogs by eating each others poo. We desire the poo concealing behavior because it is more convenient and more like our own.
I kind of want to generalize your last point. Specific examples of behavior may not really indicate "intelligence". Especially from animals that have been intentionally bred for thousands of years to coexist with us. The animals are so fundamentally different from each other, how can you really measure their intelligence?. Intelligence in humans is already a pretty fuzzy topic that we can't quite agree how to measure, trying to do so in other animals seems challenging.
you make it sound like these checkpoints exist on every major street in America. I've lived in four different States in/near some of the largest cities in those States and I have literally never seen one in my life.
I am sure that they happen in some parts of the country. But I'm also sure some States do not use these. That's why I didn't say all States require this.
Except if you're driving out of state, you didn't give consent of anything to that state.
Legally, you probably did as soon as you operated a motor vehicle in that State. This depends on the wording of the local law, but every one I've ever read says you provide consent as soon as you operate a vehicle within the State. Implied consent laws vary by state, so if the state you are operating in has implied consent laws then you are subject to it.
A condition of States honoring out of state licenses is that the drivers be subject to the local laws. An out of State license (even from a state without implied consent) does not offer any protection from the local State laws.
Individual rights are routinely restricted in cases where the State has a significant interest in preventing injury, damage, loss of life, and disruption of services. Security at a courthouse is necessary for the continuity of government service, and is not staffed by the TSA. Most courthouses are (I think) protected by special divisions of local Sheriff's Departments. Equating courthouse security with TSA is like equating them with mall security guards. Similar equipment, totally different people.
Sobriety tests usually aren't Fourth Amendment violations. Most states include some verbage about implied consent in their motor vehicle licensing process. Basically if you hold a drivers license and are operating a motor vehicle you have already provided consent to submit to a sobriety test at the request of police. Most States do happen to require their police to have grounds for suspicion before they ask to you do a sobriety test, but you have already given your implied permission.
Searching vehicles, checking ID's of passengers, and other things that happen at these checkpoints may very well be Fourth Amendment violations though.
Unfortunately you are right. And I find it somewhat disappointing that this is so true for video games but less true for other mediums.
Controversial books see sales boosted because of their controversy. Same with films to some extent. Games lack that level of protection that we offer to mediums we consider "art", and are forced to buckle to criticism like this. Maybe it's because the industry is driven by the retailers, I don't really know. I expect that we will not see games progress as a storytelling medium unless/until retailers, publishers, and developers are willing to take stand by their controversial material.
There are always antagonists. These aren't always people, but there is always something that the protagonists are set against. That's what makes a compelling narrative. i.e. Tom Hanks vs. abandonment, isolation, and loneliness (respectively).
A narrative can exist without a "bad guy" embodied by a person. But stories need an antagonist. Otherwise there is action and thus no story to tell. Biopics and adult films fill separate niches that happen to use the same medium.
I would welcome that. Once the premiums are balanced with the cost of the risk (plus profit) the product becomes more reasonable IMO. At that point the customer has the real option of either not taking insurance and managing risk themselves, or taking insurance and not having to worry about saving to manage risk. The cost of that risk management service is the profit taken by the insurer. If that profit margin is too high, customers will leave and manage their own risk. It's balancing.
The concern I have now is that I know my premiums do not reflect my personal risk. My premiums represent the shared risk of every member of my employers small group plan. This might be a fair exchange, it might not. I don't know, because my insurers are not allowed to tailor their coverage to my unique situation (unique in that every persons situation is unique).
Fortunately in America we are free to pick and choose what products and services we buy!
If we dislike the business practices of our Insurance companies we can leave at any time. There's no law that says we must have insuran...
...oh. Right.
So long as there is competition between insurers there will be lower rates for the less risky customers. If the risk is balanced correctly with the cost, insurers are still basically printing money.
God, that statement is so true it hurts.
I assume you are referring to the 3 hour long queue to go into the security screening area. That almost completely unsecured part of the airport that requires no screening to enter, yet is chock full of juicy infidelicious westerners? Metaphorically plumped up much like the turkeys they are intent on consuming.
I learned the Reid Technique in the span of about a month.
Ha! I think I mostly learned Reid from Law & Order reruns. I just had no idea I'd learned it until I actually got some formal training in it.
Seriously though, a problem that we would face with the Isrealification of our airport security model is that there is not a great deal of empirical evidence indicating which techniques are better than others. There is (unfortunately) a lot of research indicating that even experienced LEO's have deception detection rates at slightly better than chance levels; support from the community is mainly anecdotal without a lot of hard data.
Reid for example is a wonderful tool for information eduction and eliciting a confession, but really works best as part of a full investigation and when the interviewer/interrogator has a reasonable belief that the subject is probably guilty. Reid might not be so great in an airport security setting with such low target rates (ratio of bad guys to good guys). The question becomes, which techniques do we deploy?
Fortunately, TSA seems not to require any substantial evidence supporting a methodology before they deploy it. I think this is going to lead to the Isrealification of our airports long before we have the empirical evidence to justify it.
Anyone working in the terminals go through the same screening that passengers do (though I am less certain about people working out on the tarmac).
Surprisingly, TSA is very cognizant of an insider threat scenario.
I'm sorry you were modded flamebait. Your post, while perhaps sarcastic, is fantastic.
And I really should have proof read that post before submitting.
I'm afraid I don't have much advance physics, so I may be misunderstanding the problem so this question might be irrelevant.
Does this mean that the problem is that we cannot establish a system in which we can fail to observe the electron but still have knowledge of it's behavior?
I can grasp the oft described concept that the particle's behavior is influenced by our observation. I am failing to grasp why our observation or non observation has any effect on the particle at all.
If anyone can explain this to a non-physics type, I may reward you with future modpoints./p?
if the Windows security model has taught me anything, it's that people will blindly click anything to get to the goodies
Yeah, I think that is the single greatest weakness at this point.
The phones might be smart, but there is no guarantee that the user is.
I would hope that the user can control that. Personally I think I would prefer to have to explicitly authorize every single transaction.
I think it could be done conveniently though. Either by having the user up an app real quick to enable the RFID chip, or by prompting for a PIN whenever a transaction is attempted.
Yeah, I like the big sandboxy games because since there is soooo much to do I don't feel compelled to do every little thing. I can follow quests that interest me, ignore the ones that don't, and I still feel like I get a full experience.
I cheated once in undergrad.
It was on a humanities class I took in my final semester. I didn't care about the knowledge, I only needed credit for completing the class. I miscalculated the minimum amount of work I needed to do to prepare for a test, and was really freaked out I would fail the class I be forced to enroll in another semester just to complete a humanities requirement. So I tucked my textbook under my shirt and took a bathroom break.
I am a little ashamed. Mostly embarrassed that I miscalculated so poorly. Given the moral and ethical greyness that I've come to expect in the adult world though, I am not sure that I can say that I wouldn't do it again in the same situation. I can't even recall what class this was for, so I don't feel that I robbed myself of any learning. In fact I think it taught me a greater lesson about being prepared, and gives me a great story to pontificate on when I lecture my kids about academic honesty.
Sounded like they didn't want other companies selling boosters. They want to be the only ones capable of providing such devices. Or even eliminate the concept of the boosters entirely, and move towards funneling calls over the customers broadband connection.
That allows a business model like Verizon's, where they will be more than happy to charge you for the device to send their calls over your own internet connection.
As a student, I would be pretty pissed off if I had actually studied for that test and had my work thrown out because other people cheated.