1. Never investigated the daughter's physical state to see if she had been battered (turns out, she hit her father, not the other way around...)
First you seperate them. This he did. Then you question them. This he attempted. Unfortunately, he was not able to leave the father due to his combative and aggressive state.
2. Never told Mr. Hiibel why he stopped to investigate
One of the first things said was there was a report of a fight between the two of them.
3. Simply told Mr. Hiibel that he was "investigating an investigation" and asked for ID
OK, looks like he got a little tongue tied, but he DID state why he was investigating earlier. Looks like he got a little tired of dealing with someone that should have been wearing a tinfoil hat.
What does an ID give a cop in an investigation?
Wants a warrants baby... Wants and warrants... First thing an officer does when he gets an ID is calls into the station, requesting a wants and warrants on the individual. He usually also does it on the vehicle registration as well to verify it hasn't been stolen. Had the stop turned up something like an arrest warrant, he would have immediately arrested him. Now, when someone isn't willing to give over an ID, this can cause a suspicion that MAYBE he's wanted for something more than a traffic summons, but you're right, it shouldn't greatly affect the over all picture.
but that can wait until he's taken back to the station
Sorry, but if this is MY stop, I want to know if I'm dealing with a multiple ax murderer BEFORE I try to put him in cuffs and into the back of my cruiser.
The best part? Mimi Hiibel, the daughter, was arrested on a charge of resisting arrest. When Mr. Hiibel asked the judge what charge she was being arrested for that she resisted, he dismissed the case.
You're right, that one was kinda stupid. I don't know the laws in Nevada, but here in PA they would have gotten her on SOMETHING. Perhaps "Assault on a police officer" when she slammed the door into him. THEN you get her for resisting arrest.
The problem here was simply an officer responding to a domestic call (ie: Doing his duty), and getting worried and suspicious due to the actions of the accused.
I've always found that if you act calm and composed with an officer of the law, they will usually treat you as a human being. If you immediately start pacing, swinging arms around, talk about being arrested, etc. you're usually going to end up on a ride downtown.
Actually, this part DOES make sense. The officer was responding to a possible domestic violence situation. The gentleman, if you wish to call him that, in question appeared agitated (Hmmm... I think/. needs a spell checker... That doesn't look right.), refused a simple request for information, paced back and forth, repeatedly mentioned being taken to jail, and was extremely non-cooperative.
In such a situation, the first thing an officer does is attempt to seperate the parties. This was done by requesting that the gentleman step away from the vehicle and remain by the front hood of the cruiser. This also manages to get him on the camera in the cruiser. I couldn't watch the whole clip however... Something is wrong with my QuickTime, and the WMV version would not download at all.
At some point, another officer arrives. He sees the first responder working with an aggressive individual. At this point, the other occupant of the vehicle attempts to exit. In this situation, this is an immediate trouble sign. Usually in this case, the officer in question will quickly have 2 people attacking him. The second officer attempts to prevent the driver from leaving the vehicle. When she succeeds, she is placed under arrest. This is to prevent the two from teaming up on the cops.
Had he arrived, and the father was calm and rational, answered questions, remained in the area the officer asked him to, didn't start showing signs of aggression, and yes, simply produced a driver's license if he had it on him (most cops would completely understand a "I don't have my license on me"), then he probably would have proceeded to speak with the daughter, and gotten things squared away. Instead, due to the reactions of the father, he quickly became suspicious, and felt a need to protect himself from the father.
Did he have probable cause? Yes. There was a report of a domestic violence incident, the truck was identified, as well as the father. Did he start by calmly asking questions? Yes. Did he act in accordance with his training? Probably.
As for some of the other comments spouted off, such as "Innocent until proven guilty..." that is inside a courtroom. The court, and the jury, must at all times believe the defendant in innocent, UNTIL THE STATE HAS PROVEN GUILT. This does NOT mean that a cop has to assume you're innocent. If I have a report that a 6 foot 6 redhead wearing a purple T-Shirt just shoplifted a Sony Boombox, and I see you standing there on the corner, a 6' 6" redhead, purple t-shirt, holding a Sony Boombox to his ear... Well, my presumption is going to be you're the guilty party. However, to the jury, you're innocent until I trace that boom box back to the Walmart it was stolen from using serial numbers, id tags, etc. This is why cops don't make good jurors.
Now, there's one more point to consider. The 2 highest incidences resulting in fatalities to cops are... Ready? Traffic Stops and Domestic Abuse calls. We have a vehicle on the side of the road that has been called in as a possible domestic abuse. Are we going to be a little more tense than normal answering this call? I don't know about you, but I'm sure I would be.
yet everyone has an automatic weapon in his or her home...
There's a problem here?:) If it weren't for stupid rules here in the US, I think a LOT of people would have automatic weapons in their homes. But really, we should send them some shotguns instead. They work better in an urban setting, and don't tend to cause as much damage, since the pellets are usually stopped by decent wall construction.
white folk don't go outside at night...
Yeah, I guess it's better here in the US where in quite a few neighborhoods, white, black, yellow, green, and purple folk don't go outside at night. My neighborhood isn't bad, but I'll bet there are neighborhoods in Bagdad that aren't bad at night either.
bandits are rampant...
Now here we ARE better off... Most of our bandits strike on April 15th, so at least we're prepared and know when they'll hit.:)
It's hard to report that US soldiers were blown up and put a cheerful spin on it,
I'll agree with you there, but by the same token, we could be looking at historic settings, like Vietnam. Everyone wants to compare this to Vietnam. Now, I wasn't around back then (sorry, I was a little too young, just missed being born for it), but how many times in Vietnam did we report every death by chopper crash or plane crash or vehicle crash? Maybe the local news would have something if a local kid got killed in it, but it wouldn't make the major papers or networks except as part of a statistic. I'm not in any way denigrating the sacrifices made by anyone in the armed forces. Death comes one per customer and is pretty damn important to the person he visits. Statistically however, this is not the huge bloodbath that American news tends to make it out to be. I'll bet more Americans were killed in my home state of Pennsylvania today, either through violence, or just through their own actions (driving on icy roads like a maniac perhaps), than have been killed in Iraq in the last week.
but it's not hard to talk about the recovery of a demolished economy and make it sound like peaches and cream.
I don't know about that. It seems like whichever political party is out of power can manage to make an economic recovery sound like the last dying gasps of civilization. Both sides do it in America by using the "Figures never lie, but liars often figure" rule. And, the majority of reports I've been seeing on the network news tend to be the "Iraq is worse off since America went in." type of report, rather than talking about the bustling streets of Bagdad.
It frightens me that you work with children on a regular basis.
There is actually a definition involved when it comes to consent. It's called "Informed Consent." A four year old is not mentally capable of giving informed consent for sex, simply because the mind of an average 4 year old cannot process the information involved. Same thing with the 12 year old.
Always remember that laws are in place to protect the AVERAGE citizen. Yes, this discriminates against the 4 year old super genius that has a college degree, but it also protects the AVERAGE 4 year old.
1. Am I allowed to even keep the pictures I took of myself?
No, it is a felony of the third degree
2. Can I sell copies of them?
HELL NO! Felony of the third degree.
3. What if I was making out with my twin. Could we have each other arrested for having a copy?
Yes. Further, whichever twin took the pictures could be subject to other action. Not sure how that would work, since it would involve Juvenile offenses... Hmmm... Interesting one.
This is based off a layman's reading of PA Crimes Code Title 18, Chapter 63 - Minors, Section 6312 (a)(b)(c)(d). The version I'm citing is from the Legislative year 2000, through Act 142. Of course, with a good lawyer you would probably get acquitted of 1, and possibly 3, but I think you would still end up in jail on #2.
Nice to have friends in law enforcement that give you the old copies of their manuals when they get the new ones, eh?
Also, the whole book is basicaly about child abuse sponsored by the governemnt. Interesting reading, but maybe not the ideal way to create well-adjusted officers.
My Lord, have you even read the book? Card was getting at the disconnect that people have about children. If you listen to the people today, children need to be wrapped up in bubblewrap so they don't hurt their little selves. In reality, many children are smart, shrewder, and wiser than many so called adults in the world.
Ender was by far the most intelligent and compassionate character in the book. But right behind him was Graff. Graff KNEW that he was screwing with these kids. He did it, not because he got off on the abuse, but to create a future for the whole world. This is why he keeps it from Ender until AFTER he wins. And attempts to keep him from viewing the trial, where he knows the death of the other students will come out. He doesn't want to hurt Ender, but he has no choice.
Come to think of it, that seems like a couple of drill instructors I know. It's not that they hate the kids brought in to be turned into new soldiers, it's just that by "abusing" them, they can shake out some of those who will be a liability on the battlefield not just for the Armed Forces, but also for themselves.
But anyway, he used children for this story to show many things, one of which is the depth that exceptional children have, and the problems that they encounter in their lives by people not willing to believe that children can be adults.
Uh...that Iraq is any kind of a serious danger to the United States?
That attacking him will help the "War On Terror"?
Oh, I forgot that only the French and German opinion counts. Silly me. The terrorist training camps and money he spends to stir up terrorism against American interests has nothing to do with this war. That's right. It's all about oil, right?
That the targeted strike this night against Saddam (definitely assassination, and not kosher by international convention) wasn't just revenge by Bush for Saddam trying to knock off his dad?
So an attack against an enemy head of state using a weapon of war is assassination, and shouldn't be condoned, but we're not going to hold Saddam accountable for trying to assassinate one of our leaders? I get it. His attempt was kosher because he wanted to use a sniper or a suicide bomber, ours wasn't because we declared an end to the cease fire and used a cruise missle. Wake up. A head of state is a legitimate target in war. Period.
Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
1) Right to vote (ask any former felon or suspected felon in Texas, Florida or several other states -- several percent of the population).
Voting isn't a right, it's a privilege. If someone commits a felony in certain states, their "right" to vote is abridged due to their own actions. Most of those states also have a method to get their privilege back. Do you also get upset when drunk drivers lose their driver's license? This is more aggregious than losing the vote, since losing the ability to drive can cost people jobs, houses, etc.
2) Right to a trial by jury (judges can overrule jury verdicts in almost every state and the District of Columbia, and if you are accused of drug dealing or supporting terrorists, you can be held for an awful long time without a trial at all).
Judges can overrule juries in specific cases where the results of the jury verdict are in the eyes of the judge a flagrant disregard for the law. And in the appeals process, they get another chance to get the sentence overturned. Judges in the US rarely overturn jury VERDICTS, but often overturn jury SENTENCES OR AWARDS when the punishment does not fit the crime.
As for being held "an awful long time without a trial," as a bail boondsman, I can tell you that at least in Pennsylvania, this is incorrect. In PA you have "a reasonable" amount of time (typically no more that 12 hours) to be arraigned on charges. At this point you are incarcerated until your preliminary hearing. This must be scheduled within 10 days of incarceration. However, you are eligible for bail IMMEDIATELY after being arraigned. Only capital offenses can be refused bail, and the judge must be able to atriculate his reasoning behind a no bail situation. Minor drug dealers in our area are typically released on a $5000 Cash/Property/Bondsman bail, many of which are given a 10% option. They pay $500 and they're out the door. Even large drug dealers in this area historically have been given bonds of $150,000 or less. Compare this with the middle east where petty theives often have their hands cut off. As for terrorist supporters, yes there have been delays, many due to overflowing dockets in the federal courts. Support for terrorism is a federal crime, not a state one.
3) Freedom of speech (try your "loudly and publicly critize the government" here and you will quite likely wind up in jail with no access to a lawyer, or worse -- not a lot different from what would happen in Bahgdad -- ask all those arrested Al Quaeda sympathizers arrested since Sept 11, if you can get a chance to talk to them)
My God yes! Just ask Susan Sarrandon, or the Baldwin Brothers. It's tough to ask them since they're rotting in jail. *bah* Let's see some specific examples of citizens of the US being held for criticizing the government. Bet you they're all also being held on other charges, such as blocking traffic, tresspass, assault, etc.
Most if not all of those held in jail with no access to a lawyer "or worse" (what does that mean? Let's have some specific examples. Have they been executed without trial? Officially tortured? What?) are ILLEGAL ALIENS! Therefore they HAVE no rights under the US Constitution. The Constitution is a pact between the American people. It does NOT mean that people who have illegally entered or remained in our country have the same legal protections. Oh, and it is QUITE a lot different from what would happen in Bahgdad. There, these people would most likely already have been placed against a wall and shot. Here they're placed in cells with access to mullahs, prayer rugs, special meals, etc.
Just because no one you know has become a victim of a particular organization, and you don't see those victims portrayed sympathetically on your new station doesn't mean that there are no
victims. The tree still fell, even if you didn't see it fall.
Again, specific examples please. Anyone can make accusations, but please be prepared to back them up with specific cases. Your own argument is
Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
Wrong.
My dream is to have the United Nations show the balls to back up their own resolutions.
As for veto power, perhaps there should be a rule that any 2 or 3 veto powers can override the veto of another veto power? Vetoes are a good thing, but you need to have a check that allows them to be over turned. Otherwise it becomes a dictators club hanging over the organization. Whether it's a sewing circle, the US government, or the UN, there should ALWAYS be a way to override a veto.
Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
Ignoring the name calling, you have missed the point entirely. We did not set up "puppet" governments that would do our bidding.
As for the translation, all I can say is quit reading just your liberal news sites and read BOTH sides of the story (as I do.) We have evidence of training camps in Iraq for terrorists, we have very hard suspicions, as well as some evidence, that Saddam has not been destroying the weapons banned to him by the United Nations. It is well known that Saddam pays money to families of "suicide" (actually homicide) bombers in the Middle East. The Czechs have been saying for quite a while that the leader of the 9-11 attackers met repeatedly with Iraqi intelligence agents.
We also have proof that Germany and France have repeatedly sold Iraq banned material in the last 12 years. We know that Iraq refuses to produce proof that they have destroyed their WMDs. We know that inspectors are not allowed to meet with Iraqi scientists in a neutral setting. We have suspicions that the families of scientists have been sequestered and threatened to prevent them from testifying.
Personally I have no problem with any particular country having WMDs. I do have a problem with homicidal maniacs who have killed large portions of their own population having access to WMDs. Especially ones with ties to terrorist organizations. Especially ones where the most common political statement is "Death to America."
We've tried the peace route for 12 years. It may have worked if members of the UN hadn't been violating the very rules they set up to rearm Iraq. It didn't. We've given him 12 years. How much time SHOULD he be given? 12 decades? Maybe if he just dies in his sleep in 2050, it will all be over. Maybe that's the ticket. I personally do not believe so. And now France wants to give them more time? Why? So they can make more money selling him chemicals while they pump the oil from his fields?
The peace protesters are right about one thing. It is about oil. The only problem is they throw the accusation in the wrong direction. It's about the French assisting Saddam, and attempting to derail the UN resolutions which he has flouted so long, in order to keep pumping cheap oil from the ground. France has helped make the UN irrelevant. Yes, the US has helped with that, but oh well. If it isn't working, maybe it's time to scrap the whole concept and start over. Maybe with one that has a few less veto powers. Or maybe has a check on the powers that have them.
How come no one seems upset about the French and Germans and their own imperial ambitions during this war? They intend, IMHO, to use this war as a catalyst to get them what they couldn't get in WWII, total domination of the European continent. We saw that with the sit down and shut up attitude of Chirac to the Eastern Bloc nations. When any in the EU dare to speak against France and Germany's wishes, they are immediately branded as child-like and not worth being in the EU. Their opinion only means something if it is the same as the French opinion.
Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I want to know how attacking Iraq is going to do anything whatsoever to reduce terrorism.
It reduces the training grounds available, such as the terrorist training ground devoted to how to highjack a 747, located in Iraq. Also, it removes a source of weapons such as bio and chem agents for the terrorists.
I see attacking countries, occupying them, and setting up puppet goverments as having exactly the same effect it's had every time we've done it for the *last* fifty years, which is to piss people off much, much more and produce more people with dead parents/brothers/sisters/cousins/sons/daughters who are willing to die to strike at the United States.
Well, that explains Germany and Japan... Oh wait, no it doesn't. Since WWII, we have consistantly not only allowed, but encouraged home rule after war. We have helped rebuild every country we went to war against, once the peace treaties were signed. (Vietnam and Korea do not count, since there has never been an end to the war, just a perpetual "cease-fire." Same thing for Iraq after Gulf War I) If we DID set up puppet governments maybe we wouldn't have the problems we have with France, Germany, etc. when we ask them for help.
People don't just say, entirely unprovoked, "Gee, it's a rainy Saturday. I think I'll go blow myself up on a bus or crash a plane into a building."
True, it takes a lot of planning to do these sorts of things. That makes it better? The "provocation" you seem to cite would be something similar to this:
The US supports the right of Israel to exist
The US, which is a country that has managed to throw off the worst of the medevial superstitions, has managed to become the highest technological country in the world
The US is a free and independent nation
The US is NOT a Muslim state
The US, with a VOLUNTEER Armed Force, can beat any 12 other nations, even if they have help from France and Germany
Getting in a war with a nation, as history has shown, is a fantastic way to produce long-lasting ethnic hatred.
True, except when the people who comprise the nation are begging for the yoke to be lifted. This is not a war against "Iraq," this is a war against "Hussein." And if it does spawn a long-lasting ethnic hatred, how are you going to tell that this is different than what we have now? Here's a clue, most of the Middle East ALREADY hates us. We're not going to all switch to the Muslim faith, we're not going to pay tribute to a tinpot dictator, we're not going to regress into the middle ages and live as serfs and peasants to the royal houses, and we're not going to give up support of the only true democracy in the region, Israel. Ignoring Iraq is like ignoring a bee hive. Once you get stung, you start looking for ways to remove it.
I see the Saddam campaign not just unrelated, as you do, but actively damaging any effort to reduce terrorism in the world.
If it removes onc conduit for explosives, chemicals, biologicals, or nukes, then it is a huge step forward. An ounce of prevention is worth pounds of cure.
Mommy's Skirts
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Here's an easy way to understand the situation:
For years, Mommy (The UN) has been saying "Wait until your father gets home! He's gonna be mad!" and Jr. (Saddam) has just said, "Oh yeah? What's he gonna do to me?"
Now suddenly, Daddy's home. And guess what, Junior is gonna get punished for misbehaving. Now where's Junior? Hiding behind Mommy's skirts saying, "Don't let him hurt me and I PROMISE I won't do it again. And this time I REALLY MEAN IT!"
We've put up with his broken promises and his lies for 12 years. He's violated 17 sperate UN resolutions. He's continued building stockpiles of chemical and biological warfare weapons. He's evil. And he needs to go.
I'm not 100% up on all the latest with this, but what about the reports that NASA insisted on changing the foam insulation to be more "green," which in the process caused a larger than previous amount of "peeling" of the foam?
If that were the case there would be reason to cover it up. "Environmentalism was a root cause of the loss of the shuttle..." doesn't play well on today's national TV.
If it has been reported that this was using the older foam, then ignore me... I said I wasn't up on all the facts.:)
However, I know very few adults who buy (or will admit to buying) Disney tapes and DVD's for themselves. They're usually buying it for their kids/nieces/nephews/grandkids/whatevers. And to be honest, I've never really seen anything GOOD from Disney in the animation department. Most of the stuff they put out is just too childlike, and the few that I've seen that have any adult topics are way too overdone for my tastes. And for the amount of money that Disney puts into the production of one of these films, I really expect better.
You may be right about Akira, but what does that say about the American entertainment that I would rather watch Akira, even in a bad dub, or reading the subs, than the latest and greatest crap put out by Hollywood?
After watching a few anime flicks, you start to wonder why the so called "stars" of movies make so much money. 90% aren't really any good at what they do, and 90% of the scripts really aren't even worth being produced. And yet the salaries they make are so high in the stratosphere, the average person will never see them.
At least with Anime, your hero looks EXACTLY like the writer intended (for the most part), and the plots usually at least have some substance to them. Sure, the voice may not be the best sometimes, but it's still better than dealing with an actor in a role when you KNOW there are better fits for the character. I once watched a movie, which was originally a book I had read. One of the characters was from Texas, nicknamed Cowboy, and in the book it was quite clear how he looked. White redneck is the phrase that came to my mind. But in the movie, the PC police made him a large black man, and he had a North Easterner accent! I couldn't even finish watching the first 10 minutes of the film. I gave up and got the heck out of there.:(
...that makes us have to redo a cartoon as live action? I just don't get it. The rest of the world doesn't view cartoons as just something for the Saturday morning kiddies, but here if you watch anime, most people look at you like you have two heads.
It would actually be nice if Disney would just release all of those old Japanese Anime titles they bought up as DVD's with English Sub and Dub tracks. Instead they bastardize them into some multi million dollar flop. *sigh*
Re:One of my favourite quotes...
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps because they had those principles to begin with?
Unfortunately, when we stick to those principles as defined by our founding fathers, in their public and private writings and in their actions, we are vilified as well. The founding fathers believed in faith and guidance from God. Now we're called intolerant when we follow those beliefs. They believed in the right to bear arms to defend themselves. Now that's considered "right wing extremism." They also believed that they were a sovereign nation. Now if they don't bend knee to the UN and the "International Community," they are considered evil.
Maybe this is why most Americans really don't care what the world thinks anymore?
We have a recurring ad in the local paper. "Wanted to work retail counter. 40+ preferred." It's for the local adult book shop. Gives me a chuckle every time.
Re:First they came for the Indians...
on
Shop Till It Drops
·
· Score: 1
I work at a bookstore... Won't say which one. You would expect that people who are shopping at a bookstore are slightly more intelligent than the average consumer, eh? Not always...
True Story #1: Customer approaches counter where I'm working at the computer. "May I help you?" "Umm... Yeah... I want to buy a book..." 10 second pause. "Well, you've come to the right place, we have about 100,000 of them. Could you tell me the title that you're looking for?" Is it so difficult to tell the title to the clerk? Sometimes it's like pulling teeth.
True Story #2: We place electronic security tags on our items. The customer approached my register, and I checked him out. I put the item on the demagnetizer (which doesn't always work right), checked him out, then gave him the book. When he went to leave, he beeped the security system. (At least ours is a beep instead of "Please return to the counter...") I was mortified and explained that the demagnetizer must not have worked. I tried again and handed it to the customer. He walked out the door and beeped. He comes back to the counter all PO'd, THROWS the book at me and says, "Give me a refund. I'll never shop here again." So I apologize again, refund his money and wish him a good day. As he walks out the door, can anyone guess what happens? BEEEEEEP! So I ask him if he has been shopping at any other stores and he says "Software Etc." I quickly ask him if I can see his package, place it on the pad and am rewarded with "Beep-click" as the tag on their stuff demags. I hand him the package and out he goes. No beeps this time.
The point? This idiot, who HAD to have beeped when he ENTERED the store, gets ticked at me because he sets off my security system. By rights I could have detained him after he left without the book and set it off for a search for stolen items. Instead I fix his problem. Does he apologize and rebuy the book? Heck no! Does he return to Software Etc. to return the product since they caused him so many problems? Probably not. No, it was easier for him to just jump down MY ass about it.
Point 2: About half those stores spend all that money tagging their product, installing the equipment, and training people how to use it, then shut the damn thing off because it's too much of a hassle to deal with the thing going off all the time! And in the meantime, cause problems in the stores that actually use their anti-theft system.
True story number 3 (I didn't do this!): Customer calls. "Can I help you?" "Do you have the book 'You Are Psychic?'" LONG pause... "Well, if you're really psychic, YOU TELL ME!"
Miscellaneous crap: "Do you sell shirts here?" "Do you sell magazines here?" - Asked while standing in front of a 12' long magazine rack. "I don't know the author or title of the book. Can you tell me where it is?" "Do you sell video games here?" "Can I go out your back door?" - Clearly marked EMERGENCY EXIT ONLY.
But of course, my favorite was: 13 or 14 year old boy comes in and says, in this HUSHED and AWED tone of voice "Do you have the Necronomicon?" "Sure" - Walk over to shelf and hand it to him. "You know, this stuff really works! You can call up a demon and get super rich and anything else you want." "Yeah kid. That's my view of the world. I have unlimited power and wealth at my command, so I sell all the secrets in a $3.95 paperback book. Well, I guess it was the secret to riches for HIM anyway."
And the scary thing is... They're starting to get worse, not better... *sigh*
I also worked at a Sheetz. Now I live somewhere that for years was Sheetz deprived. We had to go to Country Fair to get anything. Thank GOD they finally put a Sheetz up here, even if it is in the most god awful remote location of the city.
My point though (and I think I do have one) is that the touch screen at the MTO counter is FAR superior to dealing with the little paper forms at a Country Fair. For one thing, I feel it's more hygenic, since the person making your food isn't touching a piece of paper that's been sitting in a bin for days. For another, I usually don't want to talk to someone, I want to order a sandwich and get the heck out of there. With the MTO method, I punch in my order, walk over and hand the clerk my slip, pay, THEN get my food and get the heck out. Much more convenient.
For those environmentalists out there there's also the fact that the paper forms kill trees!:) Electrons are so much better that way. Plus, the menu system they've devised is very simple and extremely easy to navigate. And with 3 or 4 of these things on the counter... No more searching for a pencil when they lose them all!
The only problem I have with Sheetz is that the MTO quality has seriously gone down hill from the days when I worked there. Maybe it's cheaper ingredients, or the fact that the meat and cheese are basically delivered shrink wrapped (pre cut) instead of being sliced each day, but the taste has gone down in recent years. They still have the only hot dogs that I would ever eat at a convenience store though!
Now this method will never replace a cute waitress coming to your table, but I can see this being used in fast food joints around the world to speed things up. You'd really only need one cashier and a row of terminals. People pick what they want and then take the ticket to the clerk. Much better than how they do it now.
Awesome! Maybe the over 60 crowd will start voting less than the under 60 crowd, and we can start getting someone other than the current crop of losers elected.
Assuming this new system is completely secure, there will need to be explicit instructions and examples to ensure even the most brain-dead person can cast their vote.
I don't know. I kind of see this as a Darwinian process. If someone is too stupid to figure out simple, basic, English instruction, and cast their vote improperly, do you REALLY want that vote to count? I actually loved the Florida recount stuff, because the Dems actually got a large number of their people to admit they were too stupid to figure out how to vote! "You HAVE to give the election to me, because my supporters are too stupid to know how to vote!" Makes me wonder if they're too stupid to figure out what policies are good for the USA.:)
No matter what system is used to vote, trust me, crooked politicians the world over will figure out how to get around the system. It's been being done for years. It won't change. You'll just have them handing out free cigarettes to homeless people to get them into the voting booth for their people.
We've already had one US election stolen by outright electoral fraud (I'll let y'all verify that Gore won from your own preferred, trustworthy news source).
Sorry, but your prejudice against Republicans is clearly showing through.
On the other hand you're right, we've had at least one, if not many stolen by outright election fraud. The election of Kennedy v. Nixon is a perfect example, when the Democrats had whole cemeteries voting for their guy.
Or it could be St. Louis, where the polls were illegally kept open for hours by a Democrat Judge. Or Florida, where Gore tried to use a recount to steal the election. Or Chicago, that great Democratic stronghold, which for decades has been the joke of free elections. (Most cemeteries are a precinct all of their own in Chicago...)
This was settled 2 years ago. BUSH WON! Get over it.
People don't seem to understand that locks are designed to keep honest people honest. Dishonest people ignore them constantly. It's so easy to get around most doorlocks that just about any person can do it. And yet locks are effective at making people stay out.
If they're determined enough though, they will ALWAYS get around anything you can throw up to keep them out.
But what you're not getting at is that the mechanic isn't fixing your car, he's working in your garage! If I own the garage, yes, I have some say in what tools are used. Even if it's as simple as saying "Hey, the budget won't allow for that super duper tool you want, when a simple wrench can handle the job."
The doctor uses the tools provided by the hospital. He doesn't go out and buy his own scapels because he doesn't like the ones offered by his employer. Maybe he likes a different retractor, but the hospital only shops with another company. Do you think he's going to buy one, carry it back and forth, sterilize it every time he needs it, or is he just going to grab the one off the tray the nurse is handing him?
This is why some bean counters dislike dealing with programmers. Some programmers don't think of themselves as EMPLOYEES, they think they're independent contractors who are just working here to "fix the car."
If it's preventing you from doing your job for good technical reasons, then it needs changed. If it's just an affront to your own personal whim, then suck it up. That's all I'm saying. And if it's still a problem, then go out, spend the money, and buy your own workstation, configure it, and use it. If you approach most employers and say "Hey, I want this $20k machine on my desk, so I'm going to buy it myself and put it on there, is that OK?" They'll usually say fine, provided that you still use the company provided equipment to do things like open those annoying Office Documents.
Slashdot Mirror
Lets take this point by point:
...)
1. Never investigated the daughter's physical state to see if she had been battered (turns out, she hit her father, not the other way around
First you seperate them. This he did. Then you question them. This he attempted. Unfortunately, he was not able to leave the father due to his combative and aggressive state.
2. Never told Mr. Hiibel why he stopped to investigate
One of the first things said was there was a report of a fight between the two of them.
3. Simply told Mr. Hiibel that he was "investigating an investigation" and asked for ID
OK, looks like he got a little tongue tied, but he DID state why he was investigating earlier. Looks like he got a little tired of dealing with someone that should have been wearing a tinfoil hat.
What does an ID give a cop in an investigation?
Wants a warrants baby... Wants and warrants... First thing an officer does when he gets an ID is calls into the station, requesting a wants and warrants on the individual. He usually also does it on the vehicle registration as well to verify it hasn't been stolen. Had the stop turned up something like an arrest warrant, he would have immediately arrested him. Now, when someone isn't willing to give over an ID, this can cause a suspicion that MAYBE he's wanted for something more than a traffic summons, but you're right, it shouldn't greatly affect the over all picture.
but that can wait until he's taken back to the station
Sorry, but if this is MY stop, I want to know if I'm dealing with a multiple ax murderer BEFORE I try to put him in cuffs and into the back of my cruiser.
The best part? Mimi Hiibel, the daughter, was arrested on a charge of resisting arrest. When Mr. Hiibel asked the judge what charge she was being arrested for that she resisted, he dismissed the case.
You're right, that one was kinda stupid. I don't know the laws in Nevada, but here in PA they would have gotten her on SOMETHING. Perhaps "Assault on a police officer" when she slammed the door into him. THEN you get her for resisting arrest.
The problem here was simply an officer responding to a domestic call (ie: Doing his duty), and getting worried and suspicious due to the actions of the accused.
I've always found that if you act calm and composed with an officer of the law, they will usually treat you as a human being. If you immediately start pacing, swinging arms around, talk about being arrested, etc. you're usually going to end up on a ride downtown.
Actually, this part DOES make sense. The officer was responding to a possible domestic violence situation. The gentleman, if you wish to call him that, in question appeared agitated (Hmmm... I think /. needs a spell checker... That doesn't look right.), refused a simple request for information, paced back and forth, repeatedly mentioned being taken to jail, and was extremely non-cooperative.
In such a situation, the first thing an officer does is attempt to seperate the parties. This was done by requesting that the gentleman step away from the vehicle and remain by the front hood of the cruiser. This also manages to get him on the camera in the cruiser. I couldn't watch the whole clip however... Something is wrong with my QuickTime, and the WMV version would not download at all.
At some point, another officer arrives. He sees the first responder working with an aggressive individual. At this point, the other occupant of the vehicle attempts to exit. In this situation, this is an immediate trouble sign. Usually in this case, the officer in question will quickly have 2 people attacking him. The second officer attempts to prevent the driver from leaving the vehicle. When she succeeds, she is placed under arrest. This is to prevent the two from teaming up on the cops.
Had he arrived, and the father was calm and rational, answered questions, remained in the area the officer asked him to, didn't start showing signs of aggression, and yes, simply produced a driver's license if he had it on him (most cops would completely understand a "I don't have my license on me"), then he probably would have proceeded to speak with the daughter, and gotten things squared away. Instead, due to the reactions of the father, he quickly became suspicious, and felt a need to protect himself from the father.
Did he have probable cause? Yes. There was a report of a domestic violence incident, the truck was identified, as well as the father. Did he start by calmly asking questions? Yes. Did he act in accordance with his training? Probably.
As for some of the other comments spouted off, such as "Innocent until proven guilty..." that is inside a courtroom. The court, and the jury, must at all times believe the defendant in innocent, UNTIL THE STATE HAS PROVEN GUILT. This does NOT mean that a cop has to assume you're innocent. If I have a report that a 6 foot 6 redhead wearing a purple T-Shirt just shoplifted a Sony Boombox, and I see you standing there on the corner, a 6' 6" redhead, purple t-shirt, holding a Sony Boombox to his ear... Well, my presumption is going to be you're the guilty party. However, to the jury, you're innocent until I trace that boom box back to the Walmart it was stolen from using serial numbers, id tags, etc. This is why cops don't make good jurors.
Now, there's one more point to consider. The 2 highest incidences resulting in fatalities to cops are... Ready? Traffic Stops and Domestic Abuse calls. We have a vehicle on the side of the road that has been called in as a possible domestic abuse. Are we going to be a little more tense than normal answering this call? I don't know about you, but I'm sure I would be.
yet everyone has an automatic weapon in his or her home...
:) If it weren't for stupid rules here in the US, I think a LOT of people would have automatic weapons in their homes. But really, we should send them some shotguns instead. They work better in an urban setting, and don't tend to cause as much damage, since the pellets are usually stopped by decent wall construction.
:)
There's a problem here?
white folk don't go outside at night...
Yeah, I guess it's better here in the US where in quite a few neighborhoods, white, black, yellow, green, and purple folk don't go outside at night. My neighborhood isn't bad, but I'll bet there are neighborhoods in Bagdad that aren't bad at night either.
bandits are rampant...
Now here we ARE better off... Most of our bandits strike on April 15th, so at least we're prepared and know when they'll hit.
It's hard to report that US soldiers were blown up and put a cheerful spin on it,
I'll agree with you there, but by the same token, we could be looking at historic settings, like Vietnam. Everyone wants to compare this to Vietnam. Now, I wasn't around back then (sorry, I was a little too young, just missed being born for it), but how many times in Vietnam did we report every death by chopper crash or plane crash or vehicle crash? Maybe the local news would have something if a local kid got killed in it, but it wouldn't make the major papers or networks except as part of a statistic. I'm not in any way denigrating the sacrifices made by anyone in the armed forces. Death comes one per customer and is pretty damn important to the person he visits. Statistically however, this is not the huge bloodbath that American news tends to make it out to be. I'll bet more Americans were killed in my home state of Pennsylvania today, either through violence, or just through their own actions (driving on icy roads like a maniac perhaps), than have been killed in Iraq in the last week.
but it's not hard to talk about the recovery of a demolished economy and make it sound like peaches and cream.
I don't know about that. It seems like whichever political party is out of power can manage to make an economic recovery sound like the last dying gasps of civilization. Both sides do it in America by using the "Figures never lie, but liars often figure" rule. And, the majority of reports I've been seeing on the network news tend to be the "Iraq is worse off since America went in." type of report, rather than talking about the bustling streets of Bagdad.
It frightens me that you work with children on a regular basis.
There is actually a definition involved when it comes to consent. It's called "Informed Consent." A four year old is not mentally capable of giving informed consent for sex, simply because the mind of an average 4 year old cannot process the information involved. Same thing with the 12 year old.
Always remember that laws are in place to protect the AVERAGE citizen. Yes, this discriminates against the 4 year old super genius that has a college degree, but it also protects the AVERAGE 4 year old.
I AM NOT A LAWYER!
Layman's view in Pennsylvania?
1. Am I allowed to even keep the pictures I took of myself?
No, it is a felony of the third degree
2. Can I sell copies of them?
HELL NO! Felony of the third degree.
3. What if I was making out with my twin. Could we have each other arrested for having a copy?
Yes. Further, whichever twin took the pictures could be subject to other action. Not sure how that would work, since it would involve Juvenile offenses... Hmmm... Interesting one.
This is based off a layman's reading of PA Crimes Code Title 18, Chapter 63 - Minors, Section 6312 (a)(b)(c)(d). The version I'm citing is from the Legislative year 2000, through Act 142. Of course, with a good lawyer you would probably get acquitted of 1, and possibly 3, but I think you would still end up in jail on #2.
Nice to have friends in law enforcement that give you the old copies of their manuals when they get the new ones, eh?
Also, the whole book is basicaly about child abuse sponsored by the governemnt. Interesting reading, but maybe not the ideal way to create well-adjusted officers.
My Lord, have you even read the book? Card was getting at the disconnect that people have about children. If you listen to the people today, children need to be wrapped up in bubblewrap so they don't hurt their little selves. In reality, many children are smart, shrewder, and wiser than many so called adults in the world.
Ender was by far the most intelligent and compassionate character in the book. But right behind him was Graff. Graff KNEW that he was screwing with these kids. He did it, not because he got off on the abuse, but to create a future for the whole world. This is why he keeps it from Ender until AFTER he wins. And attempts to keep him from viewing the trial, where he knows the death of the other students will come out. He doesn't want to hurt Ender, but he has no choice.
Come to think of it, that seems like a couple of drill instructors I know. It's not that they hate the kids brought in to be turned into new soldiers, it's just that by "abusing" them, they can shake out some of those who will be a liability on the battlefield not just for the Armed Forces, but also for themselves.
But anyway, he used children for this story to show many things, one of which is the depth that exceptional children have, and the problems that they encounter in their lives by people not willing to believe that children can be adults.
Uh...that Iraq is any kind of a serious danger to the United States?
That attacking him will help the "War On Terror"?
Oh, I forgot that only the French and German opinion counts. Silly me. The terrorist training camps and money he spends to stir up terrorism against American interests has nothing to do with this war. That's right. It's all about oil, right?
That the targeted strike this night against Saddam (definitely assassination, and not kosher by international convention) wasn't just revenge by Bush for Saddam trying to knock off his dad?
So an attack against an enemy head of state using a weapon of war is assassination, and shouldn't be condoned, but we're not going to hold Saddam accountable for trying to assassinate one of our leaders? I get it. His attempt was kosher because he wanted to use a sniper or a suicide bomber, ours wasn't because we declared an end to the cease fire and used a cruise missle. Wake up. A head of state is a legitimate target in war. Period.
1) Right to vote (ask any former felon or suspected felon in Texas, Florida or several other states -- several percent of the population).
Voting isn't a right, it's a privilege. If someone commits a felony in certain states, their "right" to vote is abridged due to their own actions. Most of those states also have a method to get their privilege back. Do you also get upset when drunk drivers lose their driver's license? This is more aggregious than losing the vote, since losing the ability to drive can cost people jobs, houses, etc.
2) Right to a trial by jury (judges can overrule jury verdicts in almost every state and the District of Columbia, and if you are accused of drug dealing or supporting terrorists, you can be held for an awful long time without a trial at all).
Judges can overrule juries in specific cases where the results of the jury verdict are in the eyes of the judge a flagrant disregard for the law. And in the appeals process, they get another chance to get the sentence overturned. Judges in the US rarely overturn jury VERDICTS, but often overturn jury SENTENCES OR AWARDS when the punishment does not fit the crime.
As for being held "an awful long time without a trial," as a bail boondsman, I can tell you that at least in Pennsylvania, this is incorrect. In PA you have "a reasonable" amount of time (typically no more that 12 hours) to be arraigned on charges. At this point you are incarcerated until your preliminary hearing. This must be scheduled within 10 days of incarceration. However, you are eligible for bail IMMEDIATELY after being arraigned. Only capital offenses can be refused bail, and the judge must be able to atriculate his reasoning behind a no bail situation. Minor drug dealers in our area are typically released on a $5000 Cash/Property/Bondsman bail, many of which are given a 10% option. They pay $500 and they're out the door. Even large drug dealers in this area historically have been given bonds of $150,000 or less. Compare this with the middle east where petty theives often have their hands cut off. As for terrorist supporters, yes there have been delays, many due to overflowing dockets in the federal courts. Support for terrorism is a federal crime, not a state one.
3) Freedom of speech (try your "loudly and publicly critize the government" here and you will quite likely wind up in jail with no access to a lawyer, or worse -- not a lot different from what would happen in Bahgdad -- ask all those arrested Al Quaeda sympathizers arrested since Sept 11, if you can get a chance to talk to them)
My God yes! Just ask Susan Sarrandon, or the Baldwin Brothers. It's tough to ask them since they're rotting in jail. *bah* Let's see some specific examples of citizens of the US being held for criticizing the government. Bet you they're all also being held on other charges, such as blocking traffic, tresspass, assault, etc.
Most if not all of those held in jail with no access to a lawyer "or worse" (what does that mean? Let's have some specific examples. Have they been executed without trial? Officially tortured? What?) are ILLEGAL ALIENS! Therefore they HAVE no rights under the US Constitution. The Constitution is a pact between the American people. It does NOT mean that people who have illegally entered or remained in our country have the same legal protections. Oh, and it is QUITE a lot different from what would happen in Bahgdad. There, these people would most likely already have been placed against a wall and shot. Here they're placed in cells with access to mullahs, prayer rugs, special meals, etc.
Just because no one you know has become a victim of a particular organization, and you don't see those victims portrayed sympathetically on your new station doesn't mean that there are no victims. The tree still fell, even if you didn't see it fall.
Again, specific examples please. Anyone can make accusations, but please be prepared to back them up with specific cases. Your own argument is
Wrong.
My dream is to have the United Nations show the balls to back up their own resolutions.
As for veto power, perhaps there should be a rule that any 2 or 3 veto powers can override the veto of another veto power? Vetoes are a good thing, but you need to have a check that allows them to be over turned. Otherwise it becomes a dictators club hanging over the organization. Whether it's a sewing circle, the US government, or the UN, there should ALWAYS be a way to override a veto.
Ignoring the name calling, you have missed the point entirely. We did not set up "puppet" governments that would do our bidding.
As for the translation, all I can say is quit reading just your liberal news sites and read BOTH sides of the story (as I do.) We have evidence of training camps in Iraq for terrorists, we have very hard suspicions, as well as some evidence, that Saddam has not been destroying the weapons banned to him by the United Nations. It is well known that Saddam pays money to families of "suicide" (actually homicide) bombers in the Middle East. The Czechs have been saying for quite a while that the leader of the 9-11 attackers met repeatedly with Iraqi intelligence agents.
We also have proof that Germany and France have repeatedly sold Iraq banned material in the last 12 years. We know that Iraq refuses to produce proof that they have destroyed their WMDs. We know that inspectors are not allowed to meet with Iraqi scientists in a neutral setting. We have suspicions that the families of scientists have been sequestered and threatened to prevent them from testifying.
Personally I have no problem with any particular country having WMDs. I do have a problem with homicidal maniacs who have killed large portions of their own population having access to WMDs. Especially ones with ties to terrorist organizations. Especially ones where the most common political statement is "Death to America."
We've tried the peace route for 12 years. It may have worked if members of the UN hadn't been violating the very rules they set up to rearm Iraq. It didn't. We've given him 12 years. How much time SHOULD he be given? 12 decades? Maybe if he just dies in his sleep in 2050, it will all be over. Maybe that's the ticket. I personally do not believe so. And now France wants to give them more time? Why? So they can make more money selling him chemicals while they pump the oil from his fields?
The peace protesters are right about one thing. It is about oil. The only problem is they throw the accusation in the wrong direction. It's about the French assisting Saddam, and attempting to derail the UN resolutions which he has flouted so long, in order to keep pumping cheap oil from the ground. France has helped make the UN irrelevant. Yes, the US has helped with that, but oh well. If it isn't working, maybe it's time to scrap the whole concept and start over. Maybe with one that has a few less veto powers. Or maybe has a check on the powers that have them.
How come no one seems upset about the French and Germans and their own imperial ambitions during this war? They intend, IMHO, to use this war as a catalyst to get them what they couldn't get in WWII, total domination of the European continent. We saw that with the sit down and shut up attitude of Chirac to the Eastern Bloc nations. When any in the EU dare to speak against France and Germany's wishes, they are immediately branded as child-like and not worth being in the EU. Their opinion only means something if it is the same as the French opinion.
It reduces the training grounds available, such as the terrorist training ground devoted to how to highjack a 747, located in Iraq. Also, it removes a source of weapons such as bio and chem agents for the terrorists.
I see attacking countries, occupying them, and setting up puppet goverments as having exactly the same effect it's had every time we've done it for the *last* fifty years, which is to piss people off much, much more and produce more people with dead parents/brothers/sisters/cousins/sons/daughters who are willing to die to strike at the United States.
Well, that explains Germany and Japan... Oh wait, no it doesn't. Since WWII, we have consistantly not only allowed, but encouraged home rule after war. We have helped rebuild every country we went to war against, once the peace treaties were signed. (Vietnam and Korea do not count, since there has never been an end to the war, just a perpetual "cease-fire." Same thing for Iraq after Gulf War I) If we DID set up puppet governments maybe we wouldn't have the problems we have with France, Germany, etc. when we ask them for help.
People don't just say, entirely unprovoked, "Gee, it's a rainy Saturday. I think I'll go blow myself up on a bus or crash a plane into a building."
True, it takes a lot of planning to do these sorts of things. That makes it better? The "provocation" you seem to cite would be something similar to this:
Getting in a war with a nation, as history has shown, is a fantastic way to produce long-lasting ethnic hatred.
True, except when the people who comprise the nation are begging for the yoke to be lifted. This is not a war against "Iraq," this is a war against "Hussein." And if it does spawn a long-lasting ethnic hatred, how are you going to tell that this is different than what we have now? Here's a clue, most of the Middle East ALREADY hates us. We're not going to all switch to the Muslim faith, we're not going to pay tribute to a tinpot dictator, we're not going to regress into the middle ages and live as serfs and peasants to the royal houses, and we're not going to give up support of the only true democracy in the region, Israel. Ignoring Iraq is like ignoring a bee hive. Once you get stung, you start looking for ways to remove it.
I see the Saddam campaign not just unrelated, as you do, but actively damaging any effort to reduce terrorism in the world.
If it removes onc conduit for explosives, chemicals, biologicals, or nukes, then it is a huge step forward. An ounce of prevention is worth pounds of cure.
Here's an easy way to understand the situation:
For years, Mommy (The UN) has been saying "Wait until your father gets home! He's gonna be mad!" and Jr. (Saddam) has just said, "Oh yeah? What's he gonna do to me?"
Now suddenly, Daddy's home. And guess what, Junior is gonna get punished for misbehaving. Now where's Junior? Hiding behind Mommy's skirts saying, "Don't let him hurt me and I PROMISE I won't do it again. And this time I REALLY MEAN IT!"
We've put up with his broken promises and his lies for 12 years. He's violated 17 sperate UN resolutions. He's continued building stockpiles of chemical and biological warfare weapons. He's evil. And he needs to go.
They'd better have a read of Gibson's new "Pattern Recognition" novel. He's googling all over in that book.
I'm not 100% up on all the latest with this, but what about the reports that NASA insisted on changing the foam insulation to be more "green," which in the process caused a larger than previous amount of "peeling" of the foam?
:)
If that were the case there would be reason to cover it up. "Environmentalism was a root cause of the loss of the shuttle..." doesn't play well on today's national TV.
If it has been reported that this was using the older foam, then ignore me... I said I wasn't up on all the facts.
True on many points.
:(
However, I know very few adults who buy (or will admit to buying) Disney tapes and DVD's for themselves. They're usually buying it for their kids/nieces/nephews/grandkids/whatevers. And to be honest, I've never really seen anything GOOD from Disney in the animation department. Most of the stuff they put out is just too childlike, and the few that I've seen that have any adult topics are way too overdone for my tastes. And for the amount of money that Disney puts into the production of one of these films, I really expect better.
You may be right about Akira, but what does that say about the American entertainment that I would rather watch Akira, even in a bad dub, or reading the subs, than the latest and greatest crap put out by Hollywood?
After watching a few anime flicks, you start to wonder why the so called "stars" of movies make so much money. 90% aren't really any good at what they do, and 90% of the scripts really aren't even worth being produced. And yet the salaries they make are so high in the stratosphere, the average person will never see them.
At least with Anime, your hero looks EXACTLY like the writer intended (for the most part), and the plots usually at least have some substance to them. Sure, the voice may not be the best sometimes, but it's still better than dealing with an actor in a role when you KNOW there are better fits for the character. I once watched a movie, which was originally a book I had read. One of the characters was from Texas, nicknamed Cowboy, and in the book it was quite clear how he looked. White redneck is the phrase that came to my mind. But in the movie, the PC police made him a large black man, and he had a North Easterner accent! I couldn't even finish watching the first 10 minutes of the film. I gave up and got the heck out of there.
...that makes us have to redo a cartoon as live action? I just don't get it. The rest of the world doesn't view cartoons as just something for the Saturday morning kiddies, but here if you watch anime, most people look at you like you have two heads.
It would actually be nice if Disney would just release all of those old Japanese Anime titles they bought up as DVD's with English Sub and Dub tracks. Instead they bastardize them into some multi million dollar flop. *sigh*
Perhaps because they had those principles to begin with?
Unfortunately, when we stick to those principles as defined by our founding fathers, in their public and private writings and in their actions, we are vilified as well. The founding fathers believed in faith and guidance from God. Now we're called intolerant when we follow those beliefs. They believed in the right to bear arms to defend themselves. Now that's considered "right wing extremism." They also believed that they were a sovereign nation. Now if they don't bend knee to the UN and the "International Community," they are considered evil.
Maybe this is why most Americans really don't care what the world thinks anymore?
We have a recurring ad in the local paper. "Wanted to work retail counter. 40+ preferred." It's for the local adult book shop. Gives me a chuckle every time.
I work at a bookstore... Won't say which one. You would expect that people who are shopping at a bookstore are slightly more intelligent than the average consumer, eh? Not always...
True Story #1: Customer approaches counter where I'm working at the computer. "May I help you?" "Umm... Yeah... I want to buy a book..." 10 second pause. "Well, you've come to the right place, we have about 100,000 of them. Could you tell me the title that you're looking for?" Is it so difficult to tell the title to the clerk? Sometimes it's like pulling teeth.
True Story #2: We place electronic security tags on our items. The customer approached my register, and I checked him out. I put the item on the demagnetizer (which doesn't always work right), checked him out, then gave him the book. When he went to leave, he beeped the security system. (At least ours is a beep instead of "Please return to the counter...") I was mortified and explained that the demagnetizer must not have worked. I tried again and handed it to the customer. He walked out the door and beeped. He comes back to the counter all PO'd, THROWS the book at me and says, "Give me a refund. I'll never shop here again." So I apologize again, refund his money and wish him a good day. As he walks out the door, can anyone guess what happens? BEEEEEEP! So I ask him if he has been shopping at any other stores and he says "Software Etc." I quickly ask him if I can see his package, place it on the pad and am rewarded with "Beep-click" as the tag on their stuff demags. I hand him the package and out he goes. No beeps this time.
The point? This idiot, who HAD to have beeped when he ENTERED the store, gets ticked at me because he sets off my security system. By rights I could have detained him after he left without the book and set it off for a search for stolen items. Instead I fix his problem. Does he apologize and rebuy the book? Heck no! Does he return to Software Etc. to return the product since they caused him so many problems? Probably not. No, it was easier for him to just jump down MY ass about it.
Point 2: About half those stores spend all that money tagging their product, installing the equipment, and training people how to use it, then shut the damn thing off because it's too much of a hassle to deal with the thing going off all the time! And in the meantime, cause problems in the stores that actually use their anti-theft system.
True story number 3 (I didn't do this!): Customer calls. "Can I help you?" "Do you have the book 'You Are Psychic?'" LONG pause... "Well, if you're really psychic, YOU TELL ME!"
Miscellaneous crap: "Do you sell shirts here?" "Do you sell magazines here?" - Asked while standing in front of a 12' long magazine rack. "I don't know the author or title of the book. Can you tell me where it is?" "Do you sell video games here?" "Can I go out your back door?" - Clearly marked EMERGENCY EXIT ONLY.
But of course, my favorite was: 13 or 14 year old boy comes in and says, in this HUSHED and AWED tone of voice "Do you have the Necronomicon?" "Sure" - Walk over to shelf and hand it to him. "You know, this stuff really works! You can call up a demon and get super rich and anything else you want." "Yeah kid. That's my view of the world. I have unlimited power and wealth at my command, so I sell all the secrets in a $3.95 paperback book. Well, I guess it was the secret to riches for HIM anyway."
And the scary thing is... They're starting to get worse, not better... *sigh*
I also worked at a Sheetz. Now I live somewhere that for years was Sheetz deprived. We had to go to Country Fair to get anything. Thank GOD they finally put a Sheetz up here, even if it is in the most god awful remote location of the city.
:) Electrons are so much better that way. Plus, the menu system they've devised is very simple and extremely easy to navigate. And with 3 or 4 of these things on the counter... No more searching for a pencil when they lose them all!
My point though (and I think I do have one) is that the touch screen at the MTO counter is FAR superior to dealing with the little paper forms at a Country Fair. For one thing, I feel it's more hygenic, since the person making your food isn't touching a piece of paper that's been sitting in a bin for days. For another, I usually don't want to talk to someone, I want to order a sandwich and get the heck out of there. With the MTO method, I punch in my order, walk over and hand the clerk my slip, pay, THEN get my food and get the heck out. Much more convenient.
For those environmentalists out there there's also the fact that the paper forms kill trees!
The only problem I have with Sheetz is that the MTO quality has seriously gone down hill from the days when I worked there. Maybe it's cheaper ingredients, or the fact that the meat and cheese are basically delivered shrink wrapped (pre cut) instead of being sliced each day, but the taste has gone down in recent years. They still have the only hot dogs that I would ever eat at a convenience store though!
Now this method will never replace a cute waitress coming to your table, but I can see this being used in fast food joints around the world to speed things up. You'd really only need one cashier and a row of terminals. People pick what they want and then take the ticket to the clerk. Much better than how they do it now.
Awesome! Maybe the over 60 crowd will start voting less than the under 60 crowd, and we can start getting someone other than the current crop of losers elected.
Assuming this new system is completely secure, there will need to be explicit instructions and examples to ensure even the most brain-dead person can cast their vote.
:)
I don't know. I kind of see this as a Darwinian process. If someone is too stupid to figure out simple, basic, English instruction, and cast their vote improperly, do you REALLY want that vote to count? I actually loved the Florida recount stuff, because the Dems actually got a large number of their people to admit they were too stupid to figure out how to vote! "You HAVE to give the election to me, because my supporters are too stupid to know how to vote!" Makes me wonder if they're too stupid to figure out what policies are good for the USA.
No matter what system is used to vote, trust me, crooked politicians the world over will figure out how to get around the system. It's been being done for years. It won't change. You'll just have them handing out free cigarettes to homeless people to get them into the voting booth for their people.
Since the other reply is an AC, here's the link:
. recount.01/
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/04/florida
We've already had one US election stolen by outright electoral fraud (I'll let y'all verify that Gore won from your own preferred, trustworthy news source).
Sorry, but your prejudice against Republicans is clearly showing through.
On the other hand you're right, we've had at least one, if not many stolen by outright election fraud. The election of Kennedy v. Nixon is a perfect example, when the Democrats had whole cemeteries voting for their guy.
Or it could be St. Louis, where the polls were illegally kept open for hours by a Democrat Judge. Or Florida, where Gore tried to use a recount to steal the election. Or Chicago, that great Democratic stronghold, which for decades has been the joke of free elections. (Most cemeteries are a precinct all of their own in Chicago...)
This was settled 2 years ago. BUSH WON! Get over it.
Exactly.
People don't seem to understand that locks are designed to keep honest people honest. Dishonest people ignore them constantly. It's so easy to get around most doorlocks that just about any person can do it. And yet locks are effective at making people stay out.
If they're determined enough though, they will ALWAYS get around anything you can throw up to keep them out.
But what you're not getting at is that the mechanic isn't fixing your car, he's working in your garage! If I own the garage, yes, I have some say in what tools are used. Even if it's as simple as saying "Hey, the budget won't allow for that super duper tool you want, when a simple wrench can handle the job."
The doctor uses the tools provided by the hospital. He doesn't go out and buy his own scapels because he doesn't like the ones offered by his employer. Maybe he likes a different retractor, but the hospital only shops with another company. Do you think he's going to buy one, carry it back and forth, sterilize it every time he needs it, or is he just going to grab the one off the tray the nurse is handing him?
This is why some bean counters dislike dealing with programmers. Some programmers don't think of themselves as EMPLOYEES, they think they're independent contractors who are just working here to "fix the car."
If it's preventing you from doing your job for good technical reasons, then it needs changed. If it's just an affront to your own personal whim, then suck it up. That's all I'm saying. And if it's still a problem, then go out, spend the money, and buy your own workstation, configure it, and use it. If you approach most employers and say "Hey, I want this $20k machine on my desk, so I'm going to buy it myself and put it on there, is that OK?" They'll usually say fine, provided that you still use the company provided equipment to do things like open those annoying Office Documents.