I've only once been hired anywhere as a result of sending my resume directly to a company (well, a recruiter as it happened, so no HR dweeb). But yeah, that time there were degree requirements that I ignored. What a hiring manager wants is some evidence that you can solve the problem he has. Do you have enough relevant technical experience that it's worth phone-screening you? Those are the requirements that matter, not the boilerplate stuff.
Sounds like maybe I'm applying in the wrong places...
Since LinkedIn emerged, keeping my resume up-to-date there has been enough for recruiters to reach out to me (sorry Dice, but you never managed that). In the US, the software jobs are fairly concentrated in a few cities (not sure where you are, but if you're using a "CV" and not a terse resume in the US, that's your problem). If you don't live in one of them, that could be your problem.
Ah, well, that could be part of it - I don't keep my LinkedIn profile updated. Of course, I'm not a "software guy" so much as a hacker-admin, so the concentration of good coding jobs in other cities isn't too big a deal for me.
As for the CV, I wasn't having a lot of luck with the traditional, American resume format, so I decided to try the CV just for kicks... honestly, it doesn't seem to be harming or helping, as my callback volume hasn't changed. Personally, I prefer the CV, as it's a lot nicer to look at, and gives the person reading it just enough info to have them wanting to know more. At least, I think it does that, though experience dictates a slightly different outlook...
Meh, I'll find something good, well-paying, that makes me happy, one of these days. Just gotta keep them boots on the ground. Thanks for the advice and pleasant conversation, much obliged.
Also... if you know anyone on the Ozark Plateau looking for a good sysadmin/jack-of-all-trades...
Your mistake is in believing that this sort of tech will be used to help the common man, rather than help screw him over with more fees, fines, and taxes.
And no, even if you got some sort of explicit ToS waiver from the original purchaser of the car, that doesn't extend to any used car buyer.
Now they're going to update all the onboard systems to display an "accept ToS" screen on every start up. Thanks msauve. You've made the world a slightly more aggravating place.
Don't worry, the first time a woman is kidnapped and raped to death because her car wouldn't start until she read and agreed to the ToS, shit'll change back.
Whatever makes you think that? Many electronic components in cars reduce cost, weight, and fuel usage. Take for example variable electrical valve timing. That reduces the complexity of the engine, and replaces some complex mechanical parts with lighter, cheaper electrical ones.
Ah, no - VTEC or VVT actually increases curb weight, because instead of replacing mechanical components they actually supplement them with electronics (and, in some cases, more mechanical components - VTEC engines have an extra camshaft, for example). Now, Ferrari has an interesting way of doing things that does require less components, but as Ferrari is a niche-market supercar, their tech doesn't really fit into this discussion.
Regardless, you are right about such systems improving mileage and performance, despite the (usually negligible) weight gain.
That is, of course, assuming you don't have a source of some new VVT tech I'm not privy to?
Yet I can't seem to get out of low-pay, entry level positions; why? Because I don't have a Bachelor's degree.
My experience is completely the opposite. Do you work for the government or something?
Not anymore - ironically, that was the one decent job that didn't require a Bachelor's, they were happy with an Associates in an unrelated field (matter-o-fact, that's how I got into IT to begin with).
Do you actually self-filter when the requirements say "BA required, MS preferred"?
Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Are you saying I should send in my CV anyway, even if I don't meet the qualifications? Haven't had much luck taking that route in the past... at least, not in situations where my CV hitting the desk of some HR dweeb is the first contact I make with the company.
uhmm..... My last car had OnStar. They could track the vehicle. OnStar has it's own cellular module.
Yea, and in many cases it's approximately 1.5 bitches to remove. In my '09 Silverado, for example, the module is behind the gauge cluster, meaning that pretty much the entire dash has to be disassembled and the SRS system disabled, before you can even think about removing OnStar. Then there's the question of, "What other, non-OnStar systems require the connections in that module to operate?" Long story short, auto manufacturers have fucked customizers when it comes to electronic systems, by tying together shit that has no real reason to be tied together.
Except, oddly, the crash event recorder - it's right under the driver's seat, and can be disabled without so much as moving the seat forward.
My bank just implemented a new password policy. "Between 6-10 characters, the first two should be 'XX' and the rest must be letters and numbers, with at least one of each type". I just finished sending them an e-mail in which I included a helpful link to some rainbow tables.
Yesterday I was on a Ticketmaster signup form and they listed the following "requirements" for a password:
"(Must be between 1 to 250 characters. Alpha numeric only, case sensitive.)"
That's nothing - A company I once worked for allowed passwords such as "Charlie5", but not a 10-character sequence of random alphanumerics (too long - 10 characters is too long a password!!!), or anything with a special character.
Were I a betting man, I'd put money down that not a thing has changed.
get out now and go somewhere with real skills before your loans get to high.
Then go back once you realize that no one wants to hire you if you don't have a Bachelor's Degree.
See, I took that route - instead of 'wasting time' on a four year degree, I jumped into the industry with both feet, spending the last decade gaining experience, learning to work on production systems that students only hear about, and recent CS grads only know in theory.
Yet I can't seem to get out of low-pay, entry level positions; why? Because I don't have a Bachelor's degree.
In the 20th Century, you could get by on experience alone. Here in the 21st, it seems that all employers care about is that little piece of paper.
No, that was not the general "you". It was the specific you. What are you going to do with this knowledge? You can not act on it in any useful way.
That's presuming that NO ONE in the public at large works for a power company. Which, as we all know, is nonsense.
However, that's not the point - putting a vulnerability out in the open forces the people who use those systems to fix them ASAP, rather than just ignoring the problem until after someone exploits it. Not to mention, we've got a bunch of pretty smart people in the public-at-large, so maybe it wouldn't be a terrible idea to let some of them pore over the code to make sure there aren't any other problems these particular researchers happened to miss.
I have sympathy for her, and her arguments against being spied upon.
Really? I don't - bitch has no right to privacy regarding her job as a public servant. Now, if they were hacking into her personal email... I still wouldn't feel bad about it. Scumbags reap what they sow.
Since when does Google define anything? It's a search engine.
Well, I would have said, "Terrorism is defined, at least by the website Google references," but for some reason they stopped putting the referenced site's name or URL with the definitions. I presume Dictionary.com is still the favored source.
Over the WAN. Or Sneakernet, for air-gapped systems.
You do realize that power stations are quite often manned, and the ones that aren't (including substations) receive regular visits from utility workers, right?
My use of the term "terrorist" was also meant as a jab against the mentality of thinking of Arab guys with gun belts and AK-47s. You don't need to blow up a train station to have an impact on people's daily lives, as witnessed time and time again when some BigCorp gets their entire customer catalog siphoned off.
That's not terrorism, it's larceny.
Terrorism is defined, at least by Google, as "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."
Stealing credit card info isn't violent, nor intimidating. Let's stop conflating "terrorist" with "petty criminal," since doing so only makes it easier for governments around the globe to whittle away at our civil liberties.
Wiki shows both sides of the argument, but Constitutional Law Professor should tell you exactly what I did earlier.
I hate to break it to you, but saying "I'm certain an expert would agree with me" doesn't count as an expert agreeing with you, nor does it qualify as evidence. FWIW, I'd bet dollars to pesos that I, too, could find a "Constitutional Law Professor" who agrees with my side in this debate.
There is no differences in terms used in the Constitution between sections, and the words are intentionally used. A word in one section means exactly the same thing as it does in another. The only way your argument works is to try and change meanings and lose coherence within the document, which is absolutely incorrect (illogical and irrational in my opinion). The documents were not written haphazardly with words meaning one thing in this paragraph and another thing in that paragraph.
I can understand that, but personally would like actual evidence to support this claim, rather than your own confirmation bias. Seems to me more like you've determined that you're right (even for lack of evidence), and therefore any thoughts on the matter that contradict your own beliefs are "absolutely incorrect," with nary a second thought. Poor showing, that.
From Wiki: It has also been construed to mean something like "all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States."
Now that I can dig.
Except the concept that, say, illegal immigrants have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Kinda seems like that would just be asking for a foreign body to ship a bunch of troops to Mexico, have them sneak 'cross the border, arm up once they get here, and take over from the inside.
Read the US Constitution and you will find that "Citizen" is explicitly used in Article 1 section 2 and 3, Article 2 section 1, Article 3 section 2, Article 4 section 2, and Article 11. In the amendments we have the word "Citizen used in the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments.
In other words, if the founders intended to use "Citizen" in any other section of the document they would have done so. The founders were not immune or ignorant to the use of the word. You can read the complete translated work in full in numerous locations, here is a plain text version so you don't have to hunt.
For the record, when the Constitution was written, the only "Citizens" who really had any rights were land-owning white males. So pardon if I do not buy into this concept that the rich old white men who wrote the Constitution for their own benefit were as universally altruistic regarding rights as you want to make them out to be.
If you respond further please refrain from further red herrings and straw men.
Kind of uncalled for, don't you think? I mean, you don't see me calling you out on your numerous logical fallacies, except the one at the top of this post. Argue your point, but don't try to denigrate opinions that don't march in lock-step with your own by making vague and false accusations. Otherwise you've already lost the debate.
The right to vote, while written in a morally incorrect way initially restricting certain people, is very clearly spelled out in the Constitution.
Yes; and per the original intent, the only people with a right to vote were land-owning white males. No surprise, then, that they would limit certain other rights to certain subgroups of the population.
This is a red herring with nothing to do with the use of the term "People" in the Constitution. The overly simplistic reasoning you provided for the existence of the US Constitution was more incorrect than your claim that "People" means "Citizen".
If this was not referencing "People" in a general sense why would the founders have complained about England searching all their shit and demanding papers?
Well, it is a generality, and it's not; we think of "people" a little differently than our ancestors did. For example, they didn't count African slaves as a whole person, rather 3/5ths of one (at least, for taxation and voting purposes), and Native Americans? Hell, they weren't people at all, but rather savages.
Also, keep in mind that the Constitution was written after the colonists declared independence from the British Empire, so the stuff written therein is less about "we want the English to stop doing this stuff to us," and more about "When we make our own government, these are the rules they'll have to play by."
Ben Franklin would have been expecting to be treated as a criminal in France instead of being treated as a free "Person". He did expect to be treated as a free person where ever he traveled as a diplomat.
I fail to see where someone's expectations while traveling abroad applies to the laws of another nation. Of course, to that end (and as I already pointed out), the fact that the Constitutional Amendments involving due process are written with that vague term, "a person," rather than the more specific, "The people," which actually supports my contention rather than contradicting it.
The language used in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is very intentionally done.
I don't disagree with that; what I disagree with is your supposition that the founders intended to give non-American citizens rights such as the right to bear arms, or the right to all powers "not relegated to the State."
Which is not what was intended. "People" in the Bill of rights unless it says otherwise is a term for all people including non-citizens. Your particular interpretation is publicly claimed but historically incorrect.
Disagree - it's commonly accepted that when the Constitution refers to, "the People," it is de facto referring to "the American People," because the founders themselves made such a distinction.
Evidence: Check out the difference in wording between the Fourth and Fifth Amendments:
Fourth:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
... and the Fifth:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Obviously, a distinction was made, therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that the Fourth (and First and Second and Ninth and Tenth) applies only to American citizens, whereas the Fifth (and Sixth and Seventh and Eighth) refers to all persons being held to answer for a crime.
Unless, of course, you have evidence to the contrary; take note, you're going to be hard pressed to convince me that the men who wrote it intended for the Second Amendment to protect the right of foreign persons to keep and bear armaments.
Bill of Rights - 4th Amendment to US Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".
In other words, OP, the NSA has every legal right to spy on you without giving you due process, but has absolutely zero right to spy on Americans without a properly issued warrant.
They check all that stuff before you're cleared, and every time your clearance is renewed. I find it hard to believe that this isn't already at least partially true already.
Dude - this is the same government that just had to get rid of something like half the people in the Air Force with nuclear clearance, because it turned out they cheated on the tests.
I find it hard to believe that people find the US government's regularly scheduled ineptitude hard to believe.
I've seen demos (albeit on TV documentations) of dogs having been trained for cancer detection. While I can see it might be a boon in third world countries, where folks tend not be to as uptight as most are on this side of the pond, I don't see it catching on in the U.S. I just can't imagine folks laying on a table (the kind where each arm and leg is supported separately) in their skivvies and letting Toto go for a bit of a walk while he sniffs your wobbly bits.
Here's the thing I've noticed about people's reactions to cancer-sniffing dogs: It's not the 'dog sniffing your junk' part that bothers most people, it's the whole "finding out you have some sort of cancer." My wife used to work at a vet clinic that had a cancer-sniffer as a regular patient, and some patrons (who knew of the terrier's powers) would go out of their way to stay as far away from the dog as possible, presumably because they didn't want to know.
BTW, having personally observed the abilities of some canines to sniff out things like cancerous tumors? Mind-blowing; would probably be doubly so if I weren't so well-read about dogs.
Computers on the other hand can already be argued to be smarter than a human - if you consider the entire internet as a single computer.
Depends on how you define "smarter."
The internet holds more knowledge than a single human ever could, but machines cannot do anything without direct, explicit directions - told to it by a human. That's the definition of stupid to me: unable to do a thing without having to all spelled out to you.
There's a reason D&D considers Wisdom and Intelligence to be separate attributes.
Slashdot Mirror
I've only once been hired anywhere as a result of sending my resume directly to a company (well, a recruiter as it happened, so no HR dweeb). But yeah, that time there were degree requirements that I ignored. What a hiring manager wants is some evidence that you can solve the problem he has. Do you have enough relevant technical experience that it's worth phone-screening you? Those are the requirements that matter, not the boilerplate stuff.
Sounds like maybe I'm applying in the wrong places...
Since LinkedIn emerged, keeping my resume up-to-date there has been enough for recruiters to reach out to me (sorry Dice, but you never managed that). In the US, the software jobs are fairly concentrated in a few cities (not sure where you are, but if you're using a "CV" and not a terse resume in the US, that's your problem). If you don't live in one of them, that could be your problem.
Ah, well, that could be part of it - I don't keep my LinkedIn profile updated. Of course, I'm not a "software guy" so much as a hacker-admin, so the concentration of good coding jobs in other cities isn't too big a deal for me.
As for the CV, I wasn't having a lot of luck with the traditional, American resume format, so I decided to try the CV just for kicks... honestly, it doesn't seem to be harming or helping, as my callback volume hasn't changed. Personally, I prefer the CV, as it's a lot nicer to look at, and gives the person reading it just enough info to have them wanting to know more. At least, I think it does that, though experience dictates a slightly different outlook...
Meh, I'll find something good, well-paying, that makes me happy, one of these days. Just gotta keep them boots on the ground. Thanks for the advice and pleasant conversation, much obliged.
Also... if you know anyone on the Ozark Plateau looking for a good sysadmin/jack-of-all-trades...
Your mistake is in believing that this sort of tech will be used to help the common man, rather than help screw him over with more fees, fines, and taxes.
And no, even if you got some sort of explicit ToS waiver from the original purchaser of the car, that doesn't extend to any used car buyer.
Now they're going to update all the onboard systems to display an "accept ToS" screen on every start up.
Thanks msauve. You've made the world a slightly more aggravating place.
Don't worry, the first time a woman is kidnapped and raped to death because her car wouldn't start until she read and agreed to the ToS, shit'll change back.
Gonna suck for her, though.
Whatever makes you think that? Many electronic components in cars reduce cost, weight, and fuel usage. Take for example variable electrical valve timing. That reduces the complexity of the engine, and replaces some complex mechanical parts with lighter, cheaper electrical ones.
Ah, no - VTEC or VVT actually increases curb weight, because instead of replacing mechanical components they actually supplement them with electronics (and, in some cases, more mechanical components - VTEC engines have an extra camshaft, for example). Now, Ferrari has an interesting way of doing things that does require less components, but as Ferrari is a niche-market supercar, their tech doesn't really fit into this discussion.
Regardless, you are right about such systems improving mileage and performance, despite the (usually negligible) weight gain.
That is, of course, assuming you don't have a source of some new VVT tech I'm not privy to?
(the one I want is the Schwimmwagen, though!)
Kubelwagen!
Old VW car names are so much fun to say.
Yet I can't seem to get out of low-pay, entry level positions; why? Because I don't have a Bachelor's degree.
My experience is completely the opposite. Do you work for the government or something?
Not anymore - ironically, that was the one decent job that didn't require a Bachelor's, they were happy with an Associates in an unrelated field (matter-o-fact, that's how I got into IT to begin with).
Do you actually self-filter when the requirements say "BA required, MS preferred"?
Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Are you saying I should send in my CV anyway, even if I don't meet the qualifications? Haven't had much luck taking that route in the past... at least, not in situations where my CV hitting the desk of some HR dweeb is the first contact I make with the company.
so try and sue our overpriced lawyers with unlimited money. bwahahaha.
-ford.
All capitalists fear the class action lawsuit.
uhmm..... My last car had OnStar. They could track the vehicle. OnStar has it's own cellular module.
Yea, and in many cases it's approximately 1.5 bitches to remove. In my '09 Silverado, for example, the module is behind the gauge cluster, meaning that pretty much the entire dash has to be disassembled and the SRS system disabled, before you can even think about removing OnStar. Then there's the question of, "What other, non-OnStar systems require the connections in that module to operate?" Long story short, auto manufacturers have fucked customizers when it comes to electronic systems, by tying together shit that has no real reason to be tied together.
Except, oddly, the crash event recorder - it's right under the driver's seat, and can be disabled without so much as moving the seat forward.
My bank just implemented a new password policy. "Between 6-10 characters, the first two should be 'XX' and the rest must be letters and numbers, with at least one of each type". I just finished sending them an e-mail in which I included a helpful link to some rainbow tables.
I believe you just won the Internet.
Yesterday I was on a Ticketmaster signup form and they listed the following "requirements" for a password:
"(Must be between 1 to 250 characters. Alpha numeric only, case sensitive.)"
That's nothing - A company I once worked for allowed passwords such as "Charlie5", but not a 10-character sequence of random alphanumerics (too long - 10 characters is too long a password!!!), or anything with a special character.
Were I a betting man, I'd put money down that not a thing has changed.
get out now and go somewhere with real skills before your loans get to high.
Then go back once you realize that no one wants to hire you if you don't have a Bachelor's Degree.
See, I took that route - instead of 'wasting time' on a four year degree, I jumped into the industry with both feet, spending the last decade gaining experience, learning to work on production systems that students only hear about, and recent CS grads only know in theory.
Yet I can't seem to get out of low-pay, entry level positions; why? Because I don't have a Bachelor's degree.
In the 20th Century, you could get by on experience alone. Here in the 21st, it seems that all employers care about is that little piece of paper.
No, that was not the general "you". It was the specific you. What are you going to do with this knowledge? You can not act on it in any useful way.
That's presuming that NO ONE in the public at large works for a power company. Which, as we all know, is nonsense.
However, that's not the point - putting a vulnerability out in the open forces the people who use those systems to fix them ASAP, rather than just ignoring the problem until after someone exploits it. Not to mention, we've got a bunch of pretty smart people in the public-at-large, so maybe it wouldn't be a terrible idea to let some of them pore over the code to make sure there aren't any other problems these particular researchers happened to miss.
I have sympathy for her, and her arguments against being spied upon.
Really? I don't - bitch has no right to privacy regarding her job as a public servant. Now, if they were hacking into her personal email... I still wouldn't feel bad about it. Scumbags reap what they sow.
Since when does Google define anything? It's a search engine.
Well, I would have said, "Terrorism is defined, at least by the website Google references," but for some reason they stopped putting the referenced site's name or URL with the definitions. I presume Dictionary.com is still the favored source.
But how do you upgrade your local power station?
Over the WAN. Or Sneakernet, for air-gapped systems.
You do realize that power stations are quite often manned, and the ones that aren't (including substations) receive regular visits from utility workers, right?
My use of the term "terrorist" was also meant as a jab against the mentality of thinking of Arab guys with gun belts and AK-47s. You don't need to blow up a train station to have an impact on people's daily lives, as witnessed time and time again when some BigCorp gets their entire customer catalog siphoned off.
That's not terrorism, it's larceny.
Terrorism is defined, at least by Google, as "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."
Stealing credit card info isn't violent, nor intimidating. Let's stop conflating "terrorist" with "petty criminal," since doing so only makes it easier for governments around the globe to whittle away at our civil liberties.
Yeah, but other saying goes: You don't have to help the terrorists by making it easy for them.
By giving the information to a government, they are helping the terrorists.
Wiki shows both sides of the argument, but Constitutional Law Professor should tell you exactly what I did earlier.
I hate to break it to you, but saying "I'm certain an expert would agree with me" doesn't count as an expert agreeing with you, nor does it qualify as evidence. FWIW, I'd bet dollars to pesos that I, too, could find a "Constitutional Law Professor" who agrees with my side in this debate.
There is no differences in terms used in the Constitution between sections, and the words are intentionally used. A word in one section means exactly the same thing as it does in another. The only way your argument works is to try and change meanings and lose coherence within the document, which is absolutely incorrect (illogical and irrational in my opinion). The documents were not written haphazardly with words meaning one thing in this paragraph and another thing in that paragraph.
I can understand that, but personally would like actual evidence to support this claim, rather than your own confirmation bias. Seems to me more like you've determined that you're right (even for lack of evidence), and therefore any thoughts on the matter that contradict your own beliefs are "absolutely incorrect," with nary a second thought. Poor showing, that.
From Wiki: It has also been construed to mean something like "all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States."
Now that I can dig.
Except the concept that, say, illegal immigrants have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Kinda seems like that would just be asking for a foreign body to ship a bunch of troops to Mexico, have them sneak 'cross the border, arm up once they get here, and take over from the inside.
Read the US Constitution and you will find that "Citizen" is explicitly used in Article 1 section 2 and 3, Article 2 section 1, Article 3 section 2, Article 4 section 2, and Article 11. In the amendments we have the word "Citizen used in the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments.
In other words, if the founders intended to use "Citizen" in any other section of the document they would have done so. The founders were not immune or ignorant to the use of the word. You can read the complete translated work in full in numerous locations, here is a plain text version so you don't have to hunt.
For the record, when the Constitution was written, the only "Citizens" who really had any rights were land-owning white males. So pardon if I do not buy into this concept that the rich old white men who wrote the Constitution for their own benefit were as universally altruistic regarding rights as you want to make them out to be.
If you respond further please refrain from further red herrings and straw men.
Kind of uncalled for, don't you think? I mean, you don't see me calling you out on your numerous logical fallacies, except the one at the top of this post. Argue your point, but don't try to denigrate opinions that don't march in lock-step with your own by making vague and false accusations. Otherwise you've already lost the debate.
The right to vote, while written in a morally incorrect way initially restricting certain people, is very clearly spelled out in the Constitution.
Yes; and per the original intent, the only people with a right to vote were land-owning white males. No surprise, then, that they would limit certain other rights to certain subgroups of the population.
This is a red herring with nothing to do with the use of the term "People" in the Constitution. The overly simplistic reasoning you provided for the existence of the US Constitution was more incorrect than your claim that "People" means "Citizen".
OK, first you say that my reasoning was obtus
If this was not referencing "People" in a general sense why would the founders have complained about England searching all their shit and demanding papers?
Well, it is a generality, and it's not; we think of "people" a little differently than our ancestors did. For example, they didn't count African slaves as a whole person, rather 3/5ths of one (at least, for taxation and voting purposes), and Native Americans? Hell, they weren't people at all, but rather savages.
Also, keep in mind that the Constitution was written after the colonists declared independence from the British Empire, so the stuff written therein is less about "we want the English to stop doing this stuff to us," and more about "When we make our own government, these are the rules they'll have to play by."
Ben Franklin would have been expecting to be treated as a criminal in France instead of being treated as a free "Person". He did expect to be treated as a free person where ever he traveled as a diplomat.
I fail to see where someone's expectations while traveling abroad applies to the laws of another nation. Of course, to that end (and as I already pointed out), the fact that the Constitutional Amendments involving due process are written with that vague term, "a person," rather than the more specific, "The people," which actually supports my contention rather than contradicting it.
The language used in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is very intentionally done.
I don't disagree with that; what I disagree with is your supposition that the founders intended to give non-American citizens rights such as the right to bear arms, or the right to all powers "not relegated to the State."
Which is not what was intended. "People" in the Bill of rights unless it says otherwise is a term for all people including non-citizens. Your particular interpretation is publicly claimed but historically incorrect.
Disagree - it's commonly accepted that when the Constitution refers to, "the People," it is de facto referring to "the American People," because the founders themselves made such a distinction.
Evidence: Check out the difference in wording between the Fourth and Fifth Amendments:
Fourth:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
... and the Fifth:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Obviously, a distinction was made, therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that the Fourth (and First and Second and Ninth and Tenth) applies only to American citizens, whereas the Fifth (and Sixth and Seventh and Eighth) refers to all persons being held to answer for a crime.
Unless, of course, you have evidence to the contrary; take note, you're going to be hard pressed to convince me that the men who wrote it intended for the Second Amendment to protect the right of foreign persons to keep and bear armaments.
Bill of Rights - 4th Amendment to US Constitution:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".
In other words, OP, the NSA has every legal right to spy on you without giving you due process, but has absolutely zero right to spy on Americans without a properly issued warrant.
They check all that stuff before you're cleared, and every time your clearance is renewed. I find it hard to believe that this isn't already at least partially true already.
Dude - this is the same government that just had to get rid of something like half the people in the Air Force with nuclear clearance, because it turned out they cheated on the tests.
I find it hard to believe that people find the US government's regularly scheduled ineptitude hard to believe.
I've seen demos (albeit on TV documentations) of dogs having been trained for cancer detection. While I can see it might be a boon in third world countries, where folks tend not be to as uptight as most are on this side of the pond, I don't see it catching on in the U.S. I just can't imagine folks laying on a table (the kind where each arm and leg is supported separately) in their skivvies and letting Toto go for a bit of a walk while he sniffs your wobbly bits.
Here's the thing I've noticed about people's reactions to cancer-sniffing dogs: It's not the 'dog sniffing your junk' part that bothers most people, it's the whole "finding out you have some sort of cancer." My wife used to work at a vet clinic that had a cancer-sniffer as a regular patient, and some patrons (who knew of the terrier's powers) would go out of their way to stay as far away from the dog as possible, presumably because they didn't want to know.
BTW, having personally observed the abilities of some canines to sniff out things like cancerous tumors? Mind-blowing; would probably be doubly so if I weren't so well-read about dogs.
Computers on the other hand can already be argued to be smarter than a human - if you consider the entire internet as a single computer.
Depends on how you define "smarter."
The internet holds more knowledge than a single human ever could, but machines cannot do anything without direct, explicit directions - told to it by a human. That's the definition of stupid to me: unable to do a thing without having to all spelled out to you.
There's a reason D&D considers Wisdom and Intelligence to be separate attributes.
Wow, that's fucked, man. Sounds like your neighbor and this prosecutor have some sort of conflicting interest.
Hopefully Ohio at least has a half-decent castle law...