No one knows how many terrorist plots that have been adverted due to this. Just think back at the Boston marathon event. We should be grateful that we have not had more of them for the past decade. A lot of people forget this.
Putting aside the fact that said laws are illogical - the reason you don't do that is because there is a law explicitly forbidding it. Last I checked there is no law explicitly forbidding wearing Google Glass.
27602. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver’s seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.
She says in the comments, "The speeding was justified as I was in a 65 mph zone and thought I was on a 75mph zone, I always feel like I need some software to alert me when zones change... is that only me??"
Highly trained and disciplined Pilots in the virtually empty air != drivers in SIlicon Valley
FTFY.
Nevermind the fact the sky is damn near empty; remember what your driving test entailed? Zero comparison between that and the training military pilots go through.
Where I live, we have precisely 2 choices: AT&T, or Mediacon.
Every once in a while, I see ads for some local startup offering decent speeds at fair prices, but it doesn't seem like they last more than 2-3 months before getting swallowed up by one of the aforementioned Big Fish.
Someone paid nearly 10 million dollar for a really old painting! mind == blown.
Right???
Art is a fucked up industry; it's not about the content, it's about being able to brag to your rich buddies about how you went and dropped the GDP of a few small nations on a hunk of oil and canvas.
Personally, I'm perfectly happy with the $20 prints you can buy at the local poster store ($60 framed and matted). If I want to see 200 year old oil on canvas, I'll visit a damn museum.
> Look at how quickly the people followed the orders to cower indoors because of 2 kids.
Really? The "2 kids" in question bombed a public event with improvised explosives, then killed a police officer, hijacked a car and the last one took refuge by hiding in a boat in a local neighborhood. How would the authorities have responded in your magical utopian 'free' country?
Question: did all that lockdown crap actually have a net positive effect, or did it take some random person stepping into his backyard (which he couldn't do during the martial-law-practice-run) to catch the bomber?
Its just that this asshole continues to hap hazardly condemn innocent American lives with his wild hairs up his ass and has no way to shore up the safety for American lives he is endangering by these leaks. He has to be stopped. God Damn Him.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why you shouldn't smoke crack.
Found the one part you think you can argue with and ignore the rest, eh? Classy.
So, double standard is OK because, according to you, Iran admits to enriching uranium and Israel lies about it. Yea, that makes sense.
Says you. Last time I checked, personal opinion does not count as a verifiable fact.
That street runs 2 ways, Captain "Makes Dubious Claims, and When Asked for Citation Tries to Weasel Out by Demanding You Provide Citation for Counter Claims."
You seem to be implying that Israel has nuclear weapons. Israel never said it does.
Neither has Iran; in fact, they've outright denied it.
So the question becomes, why should the IAEA believe Israel and not Iran? If Iran has to let UN inspectors check out their stuff, shouldn't logic dictate that Israel should as well? You know, to make sure they're on the up-and-up.
You seem to be confusing facts. The IAEA has independently confirmed that Iran is enriching nuclear material to 20% level, and has developed a heavy water reactor. And again, IRAN HAS SAID SO ITSELF. None of this evidence depends on anything Israel has said.
So, double standard is OK because, according to you, Iran admits to enriching uranium and Israel lies about it. Yea, that makes sense.
They have no requirement (whether legal or moral) to join the NPT. They have repeatedly stated that they would not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the middle east and would be willing to sign the NPT once the region cools down (peace treaties are signed with the remaining Arab neighbors).
So? I can say 'my name is Mary, Queen of Scots" all day long; doesn't make it fact. That's what the petticoats and tinfoil crown are for.
I fail to see your point.
Somehow I'm not surprised. You seem to be an apologist who cares more for what the Israeli government claims than the reality evidence presents.
FWIW, my point is plainly obvious - what one says one does, and what one actually does are not necessarily the same thing.
Put simply enough for anyone to understand, liars exist. Even in Israel.
See the point yet? If not, I know I've got some crayons and construction paper around here somewhere...
Furthermore, the US is not in the same situation as Israel. If Mexico was launching missiles and sending terrorists across your borders daily I daresay you would have bombed them back into the stone age.
[citation desperately needed]
Funny, because when I read the news, I see all sorts of stories about the Israeli military performing strikes in Turkey, Egypt, etc., but not once in the past several years have I heard about any nation's regular army invading Israel.
You can make excuses and defer blame 'til the cows come home, but history shows us the truth.
Citation needed, indeed. I'd like to know how many times Israel has struck targets inside Turkey and Egypt in the past decade. Please, provide reliable citations.
Tell you what: you made the first dubious, unsubstantiated claim, so why don't you cite a source for your claims that Israel is constantly being invaded by their neighbors. Afterward, I'll gladly provide links to the syndicated news articles proving my own claims.
You seem to be implying that Israel has nuclear weapons. Israel never said it does.
Neither has Iran; in fact, they've outright denied it.
So the question becomes, why should the IAEA believe Israel and not Iran? If Iran has to let UN inspectors check out their stuff, shouldn't logic dictate that Israel should as well? You know, to make sure they're on the up-and-up.
They have no requirement (whether legal or moral) to join the NPT. They have repeatedly stated that they would not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the middle east and would be willing to sign the NPT once the region cools down (peace treaties are signed with the remaining Arab neighbors).
So? I can say 'my name is Mary, Queen of Scots" all day long; doesn't make it fact. That's what the petticoats and tinfoil crown are for.
Furthermore, the US is not in the same situation as Israel. If Mexico was launching missiles and sending terrorists across your borders daily I daresay you would have bombed them back into the stone age.
[citation desperately needed]
Funny, because when I read the news, I see all sorts of stories about the Israeli military performing strikes in Turkey, Egypt, etc., but not once in the past several years have I heard about any nation's regular army invading Israel.
You can make excuses and defer blame 'til the cows come home, but history shows us the truth.
The rule is simple: stop applying double standards to Israel.
The only double standard I've seen in Israel's case is the one where they feel they can rattle sabers at their neighbors day-in and day-out, but the minute one of those neighbors so much as builds a single 5% enrichment facility, which has no purpose other than civil power generation, Israel seems to think that's crossing some sort of line and said neighbor needs to be wiped out in a nuclear holocaust.
That said (and forgetting, for a moment, that living in a place does not mean you automatically agree with everything that places government does), I'll go ahead and take your bait:
Don't expect her to live by standards that your own country doesn't live up to.
OK; my country readily admits to its nuclear capability, and is a signator of the NNPT.
To me, that's what technology was supposed to do. It was supposed to empower people and level the playing field.
While technology can and does often empower people, it has little to do with leveling the playing field. Many technologies are developed for the sole purpose of attaining an advantage.
This.
From the earliest days of sharpened rock tied to sticks, to our modern times of high-frequency trading and drone strikes, essentially all technological innovation has occurred for the explicit purpose of giving A and advantage over B.
In fact, I'm hard pressed to come up with anything man has made that doesn't exist for the aforementioned reason... Wheelchairs, maybe?
... it seems to me the Israeli government uses Judaism as a weapon against their detractors, since nobody can say anything about Israel's bad behavior without being accused of anti-semitism.
Many people use anti-Zionism against Israel as a cloak for anti-Semitism.
Yes, but it's also true that many people who claim that anti-Zionism is a cloak for anti-Semitism use it as a club to bash Israel's detractors, regardless of the legitimacy of the complaints.
Basically, there are bad actors on both sides of the fence. Point being, just because someone points out the bad behavior of the Israeli government does not make them defacto anti-Semites.
Were I to wager a guess, I'd say they don't actually have as thin of skin as they portend to*, but as I said before, pull the race card at every given opportunity because it's handy and convenient - nobody** wants to be thought of as an anti-semite, do they?
* I of course refer to the Israeli gov't when I say this; I've known some Israeli people in my day, and they were just like the people I've met from any other culture: interestingly varied.
Slashdot Mirror
No one knows how many terrorist plots that have been adverted due to this. Just think back at the Boston marathon event. We should be grateful that we have not had more of them for the past decade. A lot of people forget this.
You forgot your <sarc> tags.
<Rod Serling>Your next stop: The Twilight Zone!</Rod Serling>
Putting aside the fact that said laws are illogical - the reason you don't do that is because there is a law explicitly forbidding it. Last I checked there is no law explicitly forbidding wearing Google Glass.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc27602.htm
27602. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver’s seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.
California is technology's spiritual home in the US, where Teslas roam free, and Google Glass is already a social norm.
I live in California, and I have seen exactly one Tesla, and exactly zero Google Glasses.
Well, obviously you live in the wrong California.
She says in the comments, "The speeding was justified as I was in a 65 mph zone and thought I was on a 75mph zone, I always feel like I need some software to alert me when zones change ... is that only me??"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States
Has anyone alerted her to the fact that the highest speed limit in the state of California is 70 MPH?
Highly trained and disciplined Pilots in the virtually empty air != drivers in SIlicon Valley
FTFY.
Nevermind the fact the sky is damn near empty; remember what your driving test entailed? Zero comparison between that and the training military pilots go through.
Where I live, we have precisely 2 choices: AT&T, or Mediacon.
Every once in a while, I see ads for some local startup offering decent speeds at fair prices, but it doesn't seem like they last more than 2-3 months before getting swallowed up by one of the aforementioned Big Fish.
People will pay whatever is charged up to the point that the market will bear.
... at which point purchase will become compulsory via government mandate.
People have paid nearly a million for a stamp.
When it comes to crazy spending, this doesn't even cause the needle to twitch.
Maybe I'm just weird, but I don't think I'll ever understand dropping that kind of moolah on anything you can't eat, play, or fuck.
Someone paid nearly 10 million dollar for a really old painting!
mind == blown.
Right???
Art is a fucked up industry; it's not about the content, it's about being able to brag to your rich buddies about how you went and dropped the GDP of a few small nations on a hunk of oil and canvas.
Personally, I'm perfectly happy with the $20 prints you can buy at the local poster store ($60 framed and matted). If I want to see 200 year old oil on canvas, I'll visit a damn museum.
> Look at how quickly the people followed the orders to cower indoors because of 2 kids.
Really? The "2 kids" in question bombed a public event with improvised explosives, then killed a police officer, hijacked a car and the last one took refuge by hiding in a boat in a local neighborhood. How would the authorities have responded in your magical utopian 'free' country?
Question: did all that lockdown crap actually have a net positive effect, or did it take some random person stepping into his backyard (which he couldn't do during the martial-law-practice-run) to catch the bomber?
Its just that this asshole continues to hap hazardly condemn innocent American lives with his wild hairs up his ass and has no way to shore up the safety for American lives he is endangering by these leaks. He has to be stopped. God Damn Him.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why you shouldn't smoke crack.
But hey, Cold War realpolitik is weird like that.
FTFY.
Ah, I think that was supposed to be sarcasm, poorly executed though it may be.
Found the one part you think you can argue with and ignore the rest, eh? Classy.
So, double standard is OK because, according to you, Iran admits to enriching uranium and Israel lies about it. Yea, that makes sense.
Says you. Last time I checked, personal opinion does not count as a verifiable fact.
That street runs 2 ways, Captain "Makes Dubious Claims, and When Asked for Citation Tries to Weasel Out by Demanding You Provide Citation for Counter Claims."
I never said it was new, I implied that it's mind-blowing somebody would pay 7 Benjamins for a damn LaserDisc. That's nuts, bro.
You seem to be implying that Israel has nuclear weapons. Israel never said it does.
Neither has Iran; in fact, they've outright denied it.
So the question becomes, why should the IAEA believe Israel and not Iran? If Iran has to let UN inspectors check out their stuff, shouldn't logic dictate that Israel should as well? You know, to make sure they're on the up-and-up.
You seem to be confusing facts. The IAEA has independently confirmed that Iran is enriching nuclear material to 20% level, and has developed a heavy water reactor. And again, IRAN HAS SAID SO ITSELF. None of this evidence depends on anything Israel has said.
So, double standard is OK because, according to you, Iran admits to enriching uranium and Israel lies about it. Yea, that makes sense.
They have no requirement (whether legal or moral) to join the NPT. They have repeatedly stated that they would not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the middle east and would be willing to sign the NPT once the region cools down (peace treaties are signed with the remaining Arab neighbors).
So? I can say 'my name is Mary, Queen of Scots" all day long; doesn't make it fact. That's what the petticoats and tinfoil crown are for.
I fail to see your point.
Somehow I'm not surprised. You seem to be an apologist who cares more for what the Israeli government claims than the reality evidence presents.
FWIW, my point is plainly obvious - what one says one does, and what one actually does are not necessarily the same thing.
Put simply enough for anyone to understand, liars exist. Even in Israel.
See the point yet? If not, I know I've got some crayons and construction paper around here somewhere...
Furthermore, the US is not in the same situation as Israel. If Mexico was launching missiles and sending terrorists across your borders daily I daresay you would have bombed them back into the stone age.
[citation desperately needed]
Funny, because when I read the news, I see all sorts of stories about the Israeli military performing strikes in Turkey, Egypt, etc., but not once in the past several years have I heard about any nation's regular army invading Israel.
You can make excuses and defer blame 'til the cows come home, but history shows us the truth.
Citation needed, indeed. I'd like to know how many times Israel has struck targets inside Turkey and Egypt in the past decade. Please, provide reliable citations.
Tell you what: you made the first dubious, unsubstantiated claim, so why don't you cite a source for your claims that Israel is constantly being invaded by their neighbors. Afterward, I'll gladly provide links to the syndicated news articles proving my own claims.
the visual art of young people seems to be increasing in creativity and complexity in recent years
Riiiiight.
Dali's The Apotheosis of Homer is creative and complex.
Infographics... not so much.
Though I will say, there's some really neat stuff on deviantart... and not just renditions of nude anime chicks.
I think we're all missing the real news here, folks:
Somebody paid almost $700 for a fucking LaserDisc!!!
mind == blown.
You seem to be implying that Israel has nuclear weapons. Israel never said it does.
Neither has Iran; in fact, they've outright denied it.
So the question becomes, why should the IAEA believe Israel and not Iran? If Iran has to let UN inspectors check out their stuff, shouldn't logic dictate that Israel should as well? You know, to make sure they're on the up-and-up.
They have no requirement (whether legal or moral) to join the NPT. They have repeatedly stated that they would not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the middle east and would be willing to sign the NPT once the region cools down (peace treaties are signed with the remaining Arab neighbors).
So? I can say 'my name is Mary, Queen of Scots" all day long; doesn't make it fact. That's what the petticoats and tinfoil crown are for.
Furthermore, the US is not in the same situation as Israel. If Mexico was launching missiles and sending terrorists across your borders daily I daresay you would have bombed them back into the stone age.
[citation desperately needed]
Funny, because when I read the news, I see all sorts of stories about the Israeli military performing strikes in Turkey, Egypt, etc., but not once in the past several years have I heard about any nation's regular army invading Israel.
You can make excuses and defer blame 'til the cows come home, but history shows us the truth.
Nonsense.
The rule is simple: stop applying double standards to Israel.
The only double standard I've seen in Israel's case is the one where they feel they can rattle sabers at their neighbors day-in and day-out, but the minute one of those neighbors so much as builds a single 5% enrichment facility, which has no purpose other than civil power generation, Israel seems to think that's crossing some sort of line and said neighbor needs to be wiped out in a nuclear holocaust.
That said (and forgetting, for a moment, that living in a place does not mean you automatically agree with everything that places government does), I'll go ahead and take your bait:
Don't expect her to live by standards that your own country doesn't live up to.
OK; my country readily admits to its nuclear capability, and is a signator of the NNPT.
Your move, Israel.
To me, that's what technology was supposed to do. It was supposed to empower people and level the playing field.
While technology can and does often empower people, it has little to do with leveling the playing field. Many technologies are developed for the sole purpose of attaining an advantage.
This.
From the earliest days of sharpened rock tied to sticks, to our modern times of high-frequency trading and drone strikes, essentially all technological innovation has occurred for the explicit purpose of giving A and advantage over B.
In fact, I'm hard pressed to come up with anything man has made that doesn't exist for the aforementioned reason... Wheelchairs, maybe?
Someone who gives (invests) someone else capital for a business, and expects absolutely nothing in return.
In other words, a mythological creature.
There's no such thing as a free lunch, my friends.
... it seems to me the Israeli government uses Judaism as a weapon against their detractors, since nobody can say anything about Israel's bad behavior without being accused of anti-semitism.
Many people use anti-Zionism against Israel as a cloak for anti-Semitism.
The European Left and Its Trouble With Jews
Yes, but it's also true that many people who claim that anti-Zionism is a cloak for anti-Semitism use it as a club to bash Israel's detractors, regardless of the legitimacy of the complaints.
Basically, there are bad actors on both sides of the fence. Point being, just because someone points out the bad behavior of the Israeli government does not make them defacto anti-Semites.
Remind me...why are they so easily offended?
*shrug* try asking them.
Were I to wager a guess, I'd say they don't actually have as thin of skin as they portend to*, but as I said before, pull the race card at every given opportunity because it's handy and convenient - nobody** wants to be thought of as an anti-semite, do they?
* I of course refer to the Israeli gov't when I say this; I've known some Israeli people in my day, and they were just like the people I've met from any other culture: interestingly varied.
** Excluding obvious, overtly anti-semetic groups.