HAARP had that very website 5 years before you were telling people about HARP you idiot.
I'm sorry, but what good does hatefulness and insults do? It doesn't serve to move the conversation forward, and really only serves to show how much of a self-centered jerk you are.
Now, now, there's no need to be petulant - it does nothing to move the discussion forward, and really only serves to makes yourself look like an uptight asshole who can't handle having a disagreement without getting all butthurt about it.
I'm the petulant one? I'm not the one declaring someone's comments as bullshit nor am I the one calling people asshole. All I do is give information. I can bring the horse to water but I can't make him drink.
I never declared anyone's comment as bullshit, you inferred that because that's what you wanted to think; if you go back and re-read my comment, I said that I would be forced to call bullshit on your claims if you failed to provide reference. The reference was provided, and I did not declare the claims bullshit as a result.
In the same fashion, I never called anyone an asshole - I merely pointed out that by making such petulant accusations as
I should of known that since you accused me of "bullshit" that you wouldn't accept counter examples to your statement.
Followed by needless snark:
One day you may figure out Google.
makes you look like an uptight asshole. Note that "look like" and "are" have completely different meanings.
By the way, moving the goal posts isn't the same as moving forward.
Completely agree, and it's a non-starter to this discussion - it appears the issue in this case is less about moving the goalposts, and more about failing to properly establish their location to begin with, which I take full responsibility for.
Sounds like a dumb idea, until you realize that Chuck E. Cheese and similar businesses have, for decades, been using a similar tactic to avoid running afoul of gambling laws: You're not playing for gifts or money, you're playing for worthless tokens!
The fact that said worthless tokens can be exchanged for things with monetary value is, apparently, non sequitur.
Shut him down? For what? Selling something that someone somewhere might use to break a law? That's not a crime in itself, you know.
If the government could legally 'shut down' anyone and everyone capable of using a tool for crime, we'd all be in some seriously deep shit.
You gave a premise that the government could not legally 'shut down' anyone and everyone capable of using a tool for crime.
I gave three of where "the government" could and have. You didn't say what type of government - you said "the government".
Fair enough, I was under the assumption that references to "the government" were pretty much defacto references to federal government, but I suppose I could have further clarified for the laymen who don't pay attention to politics. Sometimes I forget Slashdot has an international audience, many of whom are ignorant of American political lingo.
Of course, as an American, you don't really get to use that excuse.
I should of known that since you accused me of "bullshit" that you wouldn't accept counter examples to your statement. One day you may figure out Google.
Now, now, there's no need to be petulant - it does nothing to move the discussion forward, and really only serves to makes yourself look like an uptight asshole who can't handle having a disagreement without getting all butthurt about it.
"Drug paraphernalia" is illegal to sell because it contains traces of illegal drugs, not because of what it is.
Wishful thinking. Let me introduce you to 21 USC 863 specifically where it defines the term drug paraphernalia:
The term “drug paraphernalia” means any equipment, product, or material of any kind which is primarily intended or designed for use in manufacturing, compounding, converting, concealing, producing, processing, preparing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance, possession of which is unlawful under this subchapter. It includes items primarily intended or designed for use in ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing marijuana, [1] cocaine, hashish, hashish oil, PCP, methamphetamine, or amphetamines into the human body, such as—
(1) metal, wooden, acrylic, glass, stone, plastic, or ceramic pipes with or without screens, permanent screens, hashish heads, or punctured metal bowls;
(2) water pipes;
(3) carburetion tubes and devices;
(4) smoking and carburetion masks;
(5) roach clips: meaning objects used to hold burning material, such as a marihuana cigarette, that has become too small or too short to be held in the hand;
(6) miniature spoons with level capacities of one-tenth cubic centimeter or less;
(7) chamber pipes;
(8) carburetor pipes;
(9) electric pipes;
(10) air-driven pipes;
(11) chillums;
(12) bongs;
(13) ice pipes or chillers;
(14) wired cigarette papers; or
(15) cocaine freebase kits.
Yet I can still walk into any of the dozen or so head shops in town, and walk out with any of those items, legally. All the proprietors have to do is put a little sticker on the object that states, "FOR TOBACCO USE ONLY," and bip-bang-boom, not drug paraphernalia.
This statue was used as the basis for Operation Pipe Dreams where 55 people were indicted and charged for trafficking in illegal drug paraphernalia.
According to the link you provided, the only arrests made were in Pennsylvania and Iowa. not really what I would consider the national dragnet that you're making it out to be.
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that —
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
As I said before, if the sole purpose of the kit was crime, you'd have a point. However, as the kit can also be used to prevent crime, harden networks, discover bugs, et. al., the DMCA clauses cited above would not apply.
well, that and the fact that 17 USC 1201 section (2) specifically encompasses copyright, and nothing else. Context is pretty important, you know.
consumer protection against malware laws in several states like California, Arizona, Indiana and others...
A) Again, such as? If you can't cite specific ordinance, I'm inclined to call bullshit.
Banging one's head against the desk when some idiot posts a convoluted edge case as a rebuttal to a general argument probably also causes brain damage, hypertension, blurred vision and damaged keyboards.
I should probably quit doing it.
Not enough data points.
We're going to need you to continue until we can develop a good representative sample; your next of kin will be notified.
I don't recall seeing your name on the ballot. Perhaps you'll be more sick and tired next election.:(
WTF are you on about? What ballot? You mean the presidential election ballot, that only millionaires get on to, and only millionaires in one of the 'boys clubs' ever wins? That ballot?
So, in other words, what you're saying here is that unless a person is a bona fide candidate for U.S. President, they have no right to bitch about the fucked-up practices of the police?
What a moronic, counter productive attitude to have.
No prick, I was not saying that at all. Get your cock out of your cunt and take some anger management classes.
So, instead of expounding on your previous, exceedingly vague statement, thus giving clarity and allowing for a mature discussion, you decide to respond with a worthless, ad hominem attack, like some petulant adolescent who just got his crayons taken away for doodling on the walls.
And you have the nerve to say I''m a prick. Ever looked in a mirror?
One could argue as packaged what he is selling amounts to the digital equivalent of criminals tools.
One could argue that about hardware stores, too, but that person would get laughed out of the room, and rightly so.
There absolutely are laws that bar you from selling tools specifically designed for criminal use.
On a federal level? Cite the statute, or STFU.
There are plenty of ways to publish the info anyone in the security community without assembling a nice script kiddy / petty criminal ready tool to go cause mayhem with. Yes if you give me a white paper that describes the resulting offsets you got from the fuzzer you wrote, and some memory locations large enough for shell code I can put together a C program in moments to do something nasty, as can tens of thousands of others, but that is the risk of living in a free society. Odds are pretty good you have by not passing out binaries raised the bar enough that the folks who can use the information for evil have other economic opportunities.
Preface: Cars are often used for criminal acts.
So, to bring out the oft-over used car analogy - what you're saying here is that you believe would be legally OK for GM to release the instructions on how to make a car, but if they actually build cars and sell them, they're guilty of encouraging crime?
I shouldn't even have to point out how ridiculous that theory is.
Duct tape, a short baton, party mask, toy or real pistol are all things that are perfectly legal to sell by themselves. I bet the local DA will do something about you pretty quickly if you put them all together in one box label "Rape Kit" and attempt market them though.
Well, sure, if you blatantly say, "the only purpose of this thing I'm selling is to break the law." But that's not the case here, and as far as I'm aware, never is.
If you can't see a use for an exploit kit outside the commission of crimes, I'd waver a guess you've never worked in any form of security.
Shut him down? For what? Selling something that someone somewhere might use to break a law? That's not a crime in itself, you know.
If the government could legally 'shut down' anyone and everyone capable of using a tool for crime, we'd all be in some seriously deep shit.
Explain laws against selling drug paraphernalia,
"Drug paraphernalia" is illegal to sell because it contains traces of illegal drugs, not because of what it is. That's why you can buy a brand new "water tobacco pipe" from a head shop, but not a used bong (water pipe that has been used to smoke marijuana), even though they are the exact same piece of equipment.
subsections of the DMCA,
Such as?
consumer protection against malware laws in several states like California, Arizona, Indiana and others...
A) Again, such as? If you can't cite specific ordinance, I'm inclined to call bullshit.
B) State law != federal law. I'm certain some municipalities have laws against selling slim-jims (automotive lock picks), but that doesn't make them illegal to sell nationwide.
Here's a link that can help you develop a basic understanding of the difference between state and federal laws.
There must be serious flaws in HTTPS if they can decrypt the traffic for hosts that they don't control the certs for.
The flaw isn't in HTTPS; the flaw is in browsers that trust whatever the programmer wants them to trust, as opposed to what the end user wants them to trust.
If you think cops with guns are more dangerous than the average citizen with a gun, then you shouldn't fucking arm your police in the first place.
Hey, no disagreement from me in that regard - cops have abysmal accuracy rates (average is around 26%), and are well known for their tendencies to use excessive force and blatantly violate the laws they are sworn to uphold.
To quote my kindergarten teacher, "you can have this back when you learn how to behave properly."
Serfs paid a their taxes to a lord who used the money to make his life better. That sounds more like the CEO of a corporation to me.
Except that CEO's cannot (theoretically) make laws; lords can.
Anyway, I don't really get why AC used the term 'taxpayer' when discussing corporate sick leave policies, thus the correction.
You know the nice house you have? Know why you have it?
Actually, my house isn't all that nice, and I have it because apparently where I live, termite inspectors aren't bound by law to actually do an inspection before signing off, and there's no legal recourse against them if they file a false report. Grr.
Roads paid for by the taxpayer. You know why it was the taxpayer? Because nothing, I mean nothing, is ever profitable enough for the kings and queens of America. Certainly not infrastructure.
Indeed, which is why subsidizing infrastructure installations to private corporations is a really, really bad idea - the deal made between the government and Ma Bell regarding expansion of rural telecommunications systems being a prime example of what can go horribly wrong (essentially, AT&T took the money and ran, and is now fighting to keep from having to spend said tax dollars on the infrastructure it's specifically for).
It's required, but doesn't cost anything. Pretty simple concept!
Paper money is not the only kind of 'cost,' which was the point I was getting at. If something is compulsory, it is not cost-free, or else it wouldn't be compulsory.
But it was the anti-vaxxers who reduced the number of people by enough that the transmission rates have gone up. I am vaccinated, but I know that it is not 100% effective. If it's 90% effective and I'm the only person who has it I still have a 10% risk. If everyone around me has also had it my risk drops to 1%. These statistics matter when you start talking about outbreaks and pandemics.
That's perfectly reasonable. What's not reasonable is OP's emotional screed laying the responsibility for his health on everyone but himself.
I, for one, am sick and tired of seeing corrupt cops literally getting away with murder (and every crime between). Time to bring the Blue Wall of Silence crashing down.
I don't recall seeing your name on the ballot. Perhaps you'll be more sick and tired next election.:(
WTF are you on about? What ballot? You mean the presidential election ballot, that only millionaires get on to, and only millionaires in one of the 'boys clubs' ever wins? That ballot?
So, in other words, what you're saying here is that unless a person is a bona fide candidate for U.S. President, they have no right to bitch about the fucked-up practices of the police?
What a moronic, counter productive attitude to have.
So if someone runs up and pantses you and another takes a pic of you in your skivvies, you were in public so there's no recourse for them posting it all over the Facebook?
No - "pantsing" someone, i.e. making unwelcome physical contact, is called "assault," possibly even "sexual assault," and is illegal. Posting a picture, obtained illegally, in a public forum is also a crime, probably harassment (but more likely, defamation), and is prosecutable in civil court at the very least.
Videotaping cops doing their jobs in a public place is not assault, nor is it harassment. Also worth note - the cops do not get to press charges on your behalf (as the cop in this tale apparently took it upon herself to do), they merely serve the charges being filed and make arrests if necessary.
Yeah ok the pics/vid of the *cops* is fine. But what about the other individuals in the frame of the shot? Do they have a right not to be filmed?
No.
Absolutely no one has a right to privacy in a public place. Period.
OK, I see you have no intention of having an intelligent, adult conversation about this, so I'm just going to add you to my 'ignore' list.
Maybe someday you'll mature to a point where you can join the big boy discussions without resorting to nonsense tangents filled with kindergarten insults, and we can discuss this topic like grown-ups.
I think this was the first year where i got the flu when i didn't get a shot.
Every other time in my life when I've got the flu? I got the shot.
I believe in a lot of vaccines, but I'll/never/ believe in the flu shot.
This.
Last time I got a flu shot was the most sick I've been in my life, nearly had to be hospitalized.
That was almost a decade ago. I haven't had a flu shot since, nor have I contracted any transmissible disease worse than the common cold.
I do, however, have to avoid people with strep throat, but not out of fear of getting sick - I am a carrier, and my wife is extremely susceptible to the disease.
Slashdot Mirror
HAARP had that very website 5 years before you were telling people about HARP you idiot.
I'm sorry, but what good does hatefulness and insults do? It doesn't serve to move the conversation forward, and really only serves to show how much of a self-centered jerk you are.
I'm the petulant one? I'm not the one declaring someone's comments as bullshit nor am I the one calling people asshole. All I do is give information. I can bring the horse to water but I can't make him drink.
I never declared anyone's comment as bullshit, you inferred that because that's what you wanted to think; if you go back and re-read my comment, I said that I would be forced to call bullshit on your claims if you failed to provide reference. The reference was provided, and I did not declare the claims bullshit as a result.
In the same fashion, I never called anyone an asshole - I merely pointed out that by making such petulant accusations as
I should of known that since you accused me of "bullshit" that you wouldn't accept counter examples to your statement.
Followed by needless snark:
One day you may figure out Google.
makes you look like an uptight asshole. Note that "look like" and "are" have completely different meanings.
By the way, moving the goal posts isn't the same as moving forward.
Completely agree, and it's a non-starter to this discussion - it appears the issue in this case is less about moving the goalposts, and more about failing to properly establish their location to begin with, which I take full responsibility for.
Sounds like a dumb idea, until you realize that Chuck E. Cheese and similar businesses have, for decades, been using a similar tactic to avoid running afoul of gambling laws: You're not playing for gifts or money, you're playing for worthless tokens!
The fact that said worthless tokens can be exchanged for things with monetary value is, apparently, non sequitur.
Let's go back to your post:
You gave a premise that the government could not legally 'shut down' anyone and everyone capable of using a tool for crime.
I gave three of where "the government" could and have. You didn't say what type of government - you said "the government".
Fair enough, I was under the assumption that references to "the government" were pretty much defacto references to federal government, but I suppose I could have further clarified for the laymen who don't pay attention to politics. Sometimes I forget Slashdot has an international audience, many of whom are ignorant of American political lingo.
Of course, as an American, you don't really get to use that excuse.
I should of known that since you accused me of "bullshit" that you wouldn't accept counter examples to your statement. One day you may figure out Google.
Now, now, there's no need to be petulant - it does nothing to move the discussion forward, and really only serves to makes yourself look like an uptight asshole who can't handle having a disagreement without getting all butthurt about it.
Factory on the left, dorms on the right. Nothing to see here.
Sooo...
Newest Foxconn facility?
Where are the roof nets?
Obviously it's a dock for their new fleet of Subterrenes, as the patent recently ran out.
Sounds crazy, right? Yea, that's what people said when I told them about HAARP 10 years ago; now it has its own website.
Crazy is, apparently, a matter of perspective.
Wishful thinking. Let me introduce you to 21 USC 863 specifically where it defines the term drug paraphernalia:
The term “drug paraphernalia” means any equipment, product, or material of any kind which is primarily intended or designed for use in manufacturing, compounding, converting, concealing, producing, processing, preparing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body a controlled substance, possession of which is unlawful under this subchapter. It includes items primarily intended or designed for use in ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing marijuana, [1] cocaine, hashish, hashish oil, PCP, methamphetamine, or amphetamines into the human body, such as—
(1) metal, wooden, acrylic, glass, stone, plastic, or ceramic pipes with or without screens, permanent screens, hashish heads, or punctured metal bowls; (2) water pipes; (3) carburetion tubes and devices; (4) smoking and carburetion masks; (5) roach clips: meaning objects used to hold burning material, such as a marihuana cigarette, that has become too small or too short to be held in the hand; (6) miniature spoons with level capacities of one-tenth cubic centimeter or less; (7) chamber pipes; (8) carburetor pipes; (9) electric pipes; (10) air-driven pipes; (11) chillums; (12) bongs; (13) ice pipes or chillers; (14) wired cigarette papers; or (15) cocaine freebase kits.
Yet I can still walk into any of the dozen or so head shops in town, and walk out with any of those items, legally. All the proprietors have to do is put a little sticker on the object that states, "FOR TOBACCO USE ONLY," and bip-bang-boom, not drug paraphernalia.
This statue was used as the basis for Operation Pipe Dreams where 55 people were indicted and charged for trafficking in illegal drug paraphernalia.
According to the link you provided, the only arrests made were in Pennsylvania and Iowa. not really what I would consider the national dragnet that you're making it out to be.
17 USC 1201 section (2) states:
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that — (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
As I said before, if the sole purpose of the kit was crime, you'd have a point. However, as the kit can also be used to prevent crime, harden networks, discover bugs, et. al., the DMCA clauses cited above would not apply.
well, that and the fact that 17 USC 1201 section (2) specifically encompasses copyright, and nothing else. Context is pretty important, you know.
Too bad the family didn't have doctors study what years of (alleged) steroid abuse did to him. Easier to point the finger at someone else, I suppose.
Don't need to, there's already a control group for that - baseball players.
All the same steroid abuse as the NFL, minus the repeated head injuries.
heading in soccer also causes brain damage.
Banging one's head against the desk when some idiot posts a convoluted edge case as a rebuttal to a general argument probably also causes brain damage, hypertension, blurred vision and damaged keyboards.
I should probably quit doing it.
Not enough data points.
We're going to need you to continue until we can develop a good representative sample; your next of kin will be notified.
congenital insensitivity to pain
Hey, thanks for posting that link; I always thought maybe I was just crazy, as my automatic reaction to intense pain is equally intense laughter.
It's nice to know I'm not alone in that respect.
There exist sensors that can be placed into the helment and detect hits that are potentially damaging.
WARNING! You just took a hit to the cranium that likely damaged your brain! Would you like to continue?
Yea, fat lot of good it'll do to let them know they mind-fucked themselves after the fact...
Something something ounce of prevention, something something pound of cure.
I don't recall seeing your name on the ballot. Perhaps you'll be more sick and tired next election. :(
WTF are you on about? What ballot? You mean the presidential election ballot, that only millionaires get on to, and only millionaires in one of the 'boys clubs' ever wins? That ballot? So, in other words, what you're saying here is that unless a person is a bona fide candidate for U.S. President, they have no right to bitch about the fucked-up practices of the police? What a moronic, counter productive attitude to have.
No prick, I was not saying that at all. Get your cock out of your cunt and take some anger management classes.
So, instead of expounding on your previous, exceedingly vague statement, thus giving clarity and allowing for a mature discussion, you decide to respond with a worthless, ad hominem attack, like some petulant adolescent who just got his crayons taken away for doodling on the walls.
And you have the nerve to say I''m a prick. Ever looked in a mirror?
One could argue as packaged what he is selling amounts to the digital equivalent of criminals tools.
One could argue that about hardware stores, too, but that person would get laughed out of the room, and rightly so.
There absolutely are laws that bar you from selling tools specifically designed for criminal use.
On a federal level? Cite the statute, or STFU.
There are plenty of ways to publish the info anyone in the security community without assembling a nice script kiddy / petty criminal ready tool to go cause mayhem with. Yes if you give me a white paper that describes the resulting offsets you got from the fuzzer you wrote, and some memory locations large enough for shell code I can put together a C program in moments to do something nasty, as can tens of thousands of others, but that is the risk of living in a free society. Odds are pretty good you have by not passing out binaries raised the bar enough that the folks who can use the information for evil have other economic opportunities.
Preface: Cars are often used for criminal acts.
So, to bring out the oft-over used car analogy - what you're saying here is that you believe would be legally OK for GM to release the instructions on how to make a car, but if they actually build cars and sell them, they're guilty of encouraging crime?
I shouldn't even have to point out how ridiculous that theory is.
Duct tape, a short baton, party mask, toy or real pistol are all things that are perfectly legal to sell by themselves. I bet the local DA will do something about you pretty quickly if you put them all together in one box label "Rape Kit" and attempt market them though.
Well, sure, if you blatantly say, "the only purpose of this thing I'm selling is to break the law." But that's not the case here, and as far as I'm aware, never is.
If you can't see a use for an exploit kit outside the commission of crimes, I'd waver a guess you've never worked in any form of security.
Explain laws against selling drug paraphernalia,
"Drug paraphernalia" is illegal to sell because it contains traces of illegal drugs, not because of what it is. That's why you can buy a brand new "water tobacco pipe" from a head shop, but not a used bong (water pipe that has been used to smoke marijuana), even though they are the exact same piece of equipment.
subsections of the DMCA,
Such as?
consumer protection against malware laws in several states like California, Arizona, Indiana and others...
A) Again, such as? If you can't cite specific ordinance, I'm inclined to call bullshit.
B) State law != federal law. I'm certain some municipalities have laws against selling slim-jims (automotive lock picks), but that doesn't make them illegal to sell nationwide.
Here's a link that can help you develop a basic understanding of the difference between state and federal laws.
Seriously? This person is licensing an exploit kit for $10,000 per month and nobody has bothered following the money to shut him down?
Shut him down? For what? Selling something that someone somewhere might use to break a law? That's not a crime in itself, you know.
If the government could legally 'shut down' anyone and everyone capable of using a tool for crime, we'd all be in some seriously deep shit.
Don't make me get my old IBM XT keyboard out of storage and beat you with it.
Oh, please do!
I do so love medieval combat!
There must be serious flaws in HTTPS if they can decrypt the traffic for hosts that they don't control the certs for.
The flaw isn't in HTTPS; the flaw is in browsers that trust whatever the programmer wants them to trust, as opposed to what the end user wants them to trust.
If you think cops with guns are more dangerous than the average citizen with a gun, then you shouldn't fucking arm your police in the first place.
Hey, no disagreement from me in that regard - cops have abysmal accuracy rates (average is around 26%), and are well known for their tendencies to use excessive force and blatantly violate the laws they are sworn to uphold.
To quote my kindergarten teacher, "you can have this back when you learn how to behave properly."
Serfs paid a their taxes to a lord who used the money to make his life better. That sounds more like the CEO of a corporation to me.
Except that CEO's cannot (theoretically) make laws; lords can.
Anyway, I don't really get why AC used the term 'taxpayer' when discussing corporate sick leave policies, thus the correction.
You know the nice house you have? Know why you have it?
Actually, my house isn't all that nice, and I have it because apparently where I live, termite inspectors aren't bound by law to actually do an inspection before signing off, and there's no legal recourse against them if they file a false report. Grr.
Roads paid for by the taxpayer. You know why it was the taxpayer? Because nothing, I mean nothing, is ever profitable enough for the kings and queens of America. Certainly not infrastructure.
Indeed, which is why subsidizing infrastructure installations to private corporations is a really, really bad idea - the deal made between the government and Ma Bell regarding expansion of rural telecommunications systems being a prime example of what can go horribly wrong (essentially, AT&T took the money and ran, and is now fighting to keep from having to spend said tax dollars on the infrastructure it's specifically for).
It's required, but doesn't cost anything. Pretty simple concept!
Paper money is not the only kind of 'cost,' which was the point I was getting at. If something is compulsory, it is not cost-free, or else it wouldn't be compulsory.
But it was the anti-vaxxers who reduced the number of people by enough that the transmission rates have gone up. I am vaccinated, but I know that it is not 100% effective. If it's 90% effective and I'm the only person who has it I still have a 10% risk. If everyone around me has also had it my risk drops to 1%. These statistics matter when you start talking about outbreaks and pandemics.
That's perfectly reasonable. What's not reasonable is OP's emotional screed laying the responsibility for his health on everyone but himself.
I, for one, am sick and tired of seeing corrupt cops literally getting away with murder (and every crime between). Time to bring the Blue Wall of Silence crashing down.
I don't recall seeing your name on the ballot. Perhaps you'll be more sick and tired next election. :(
WTF are you on about? What ballot? You mean the presidential election ballot, that only millionaires get on to, and only millionaires in one of the 'boys clubs' ever wins? That ballot?
So, in other words, what you're saying here is that unless a person is a bona fide candidate for U.S. President, they have no right to bitch about the fucked-up practices of the police?
What a moronic, counter productive attitude to have.
So if someone runs up and pantses you and another takes a pic of you in your skivvies, you were in public so there's no recourse for them posting it all over the Facebook?
No - "pantsing" someone, i.e. making unwelcome physical contact, is called "assault," possibly even "sexual assault," and is illegal. Posting a picture, obtained illegally, in a public forum is also a crime, probably harassment (but more likely, defamation), and is prosecutable in civil court at the very least.
Videotaping cops doing their jobs in a public place is not assault, nor is it harassment. Also worth note - the cops do not get to press charges on your behalf (as the cop in this tale apparently took it upon herself to do), they merely serve the charges being filed and make arrests if necessary.
Yeah ok the pics/vid of the *cops* is fine. But what about the other individuals in the frame of the shot? Do they have a right not to be filmed?
No.
Absolutely no one has a right to privacy in a public place. Period.
OK, I see you have no intention of having an intelligent, adult conversation about this, so I'm just going to add you to my 'ignore' list.
Maybe someday you'll mature to a point where you can join the big boy discussions without resorting to nonsense tangents filled with kindergarten insults, and we can discuss this topic like grown-ups.
Until then, I bid you good day.
I think this was the first year where i got the flu when i didn't get a shot. Every other time in my life when I've got the flu? I got the shot. I believe in a lot of vaccines, but I'll /never/ believe in the flu shot.
This.
Last time I got a flu shot was the most sick I've been in my life, nearly had to be hospitalized.
That was almost a decade ago. I haven't had a flu shot since, nor have I contracted any transmissible disease worse than the common cold.
I do, however, have to avoid people with strep throat, but not out of fear of getting sick - I am a carrier, and my wife is extremely susceptible to the disease.