Uh, how is that important? She was told not to return to the store, so she used online ordering to try to get around it. She ordered 2 because she thought she could get 2, but the store was convinced she was trying to resell because of Incident 1 and don't have to sell her ANY.
Well, see, that's the problem - they did sell her 2 iPhones, via their online storefront. Because of that, the retailer had an obligation to allow her to pick up the items she had purchased from them.
In case you didn't know, taking someone's money for a product, then refusing to deliver said product, is a crime known as theft. Presuming the store refused to deliver the product she had paid for, the police had no obligation to remove her for trespassing; it's called the Doctrine of Clean Hands, and it basically means that the law has no reason to help you if you're committing a crime.
You're changing the front brake rotor; you don't want to open the hydraulic system, and you can't just let the caliper hang from it's line; what do you do?
If it's me, I just "engineer" up some sort of support, usually molded from an old coat hanger, that couples the caliper to the strut spring.
Another example:
You're doing an oil change on a Chevy 350, and your filter wrench breaks. How do you get the filter off?
I'll leave that one for you to ponder a bit, and come up with your own solution (terrible, confusing hint: when is a hammer not a hammer?).
That's the sort of engineering I was referring to.
"They will be sifting through these records looking for 'counter-insurgency activity,' supposedly with an eye to prevention. "
Uh... did no one else catch this? What insurgency exists domestically that they don't want people countering?
Why, theirs of course!
C'mon, you think they don't know that what they're doing is Constitutionally illegal? Believe that, and I've got some real estate spanning the East River you'll definitely want to invest in.
As a debt-free person about to take out a student loan for a higher degree, I'm really considering just bailing to another country and take out a loan there to live. This country is beyond fucked.
I'd say do it, but good luck finding somewhere that's not just as fucked.
No, seriously, where are you going to go that A) doesn't have basically the same authoritarian shit as the US, and B) isn't a third-world shithole?
Canada? Might as well just stay in the States.
England? Out.
Australia/New Zealand? Out.
Russia? You're kidding, right?
I've heard good and bad things about Germany, so I'd say on the fence on that one.
I understand France has pretty good healthcare, but from what I understand it's fuck-all for pretty much everything else.
Switzerland - sure, if they'll give you a visa (even then, I hear that place is expensive).
Of course, you could always try not being a huge pussy, and instead at least attempt to transform the country for the better, instead of jumping ship like a traitorous, flaming rat.
We've become sufficiently terrorized as a nation, that instead of moving on with our lives, we've given up what supposedly we held most dear. Fuck our politicians (regardless of party), and the people who choose them for bullshit reasons.
and if you bring up third parties, I'll be forced to conclude you haven't yet gotten to the part of school where you learn about collective action problems.
You do realize that it's because of the loudly-expressed opinions of people like you, that third parties can't seem to gain any traction these days? FYI, In case you weren't aware, at one point in time both the Democrats and GOP were third parties.
Apparently you never got to the part of school where they taught you how bitching about the status quo while doing everything you can to support it, either consciously or subconsciously, makes you just another douche-bag who's part of the problem.
Preface: I am not taking the side of the spammer here. You keep that shit out of my inbox, fucker.
That said, the real issue is the censorship of people's messages without their knowledge or consent. Granted, nobody wants to have to filter through millions of V1@gr@ ads just to read their mail, but on the same note, nobody wants someone else going through their mail and arbitrarily deciding what will and will not be delivered. I understand the purpose of the spam filter, and am glad it's there - but a secret spam filter? Not cool - as far as I know, those who administer said filter may decide, 'you know what? I vehemently disagree with the political philosophy of Grassfire/MoveOn/other political group, let's add them to the secret blacklist.'
Real world analogy - think of Yahoo/Hotmail as UPS - just because it's a private company doesn't mean they have the right to go through the shit you ship (or do they? I, personally, don't ship a lot of stuff...).
Shut your mouth, fool! The Billy Mays didn't need any artificial means to boost his sales skillz into the minds of men! His marketing kung fu transcended mere volume!
Seconded.
Mays had the unique ability to sound like he was yelling, even if he wasn't. Volume regulations would do nothing to protect you from Billy's voodoo voice.
Jay said her mother bought two iPhones last Friday, and was told that was the limit. When she took video of others she claimed were buying more, the store manager asked her to leave.
And she was asked to leave and refused:
"The management of the store asked us to have her removed. The officer approached her, told her she wasn't welcome in the store, and she refused to leave," Nashua Police Capt. Bruce Hansen said.
Important part you left out:
The confrontation involving the Taser happened when Li went to the store on Monday to pick up two iPhones she ordered online.
So, here's how it appears the situation played out (Cliff's Notes for those too dumb or lazy to RTFA):
Incident 1 - Chinese lady goes to the store, tries to buy more than 2 iPhones, is told 2 is the limit. She pre-orders 2 iPhones, and begins to video the other customers, as she is convinced that the store has sold/is selling more than 2 iPhones to other people. Store manager asks her to leave, presumably for filming other customers. No charges files.
Incident 2 - Chinese lady goes back to the store to pick up the 2 iPhones she paid for. Store management tells her she must leave (no mention as to whether or not she had picked up the items she paid for, or if there was a new incident that prompted the request for removal). Confrontation ensues, cops attempt to confiscate the woman's cell phone and purse, then pin down and taze the 80 lb Chinese lady; some kid films it and posts on Youtube. Cops claim she was "resisting," because they always do.
Uh.. I don't think it's because the police were out of shape. They sure could have tackled and pinned her to the ground, which likely would have caused a hell of a lot more long-term injury to her than simply getting tazed would.
They did; for fuck's sake, man, it says so right in the damn summary!
I mean, shit! I see why nobody RTFA's anymore, it seems some folks can't even make it through the
No. Censorship would be if they barred you from seeing it all together.
Incorrect; censorship is defined as "The practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts." (per Google).
Except that the explicit images aren't suppressed.
A) I never said they were, I was correcting GP's incorrect definition of censorship.
B) Yes, actually, they are; in fact, you pretty much line out how in the rest of your post, albeit substituting the word "suppressing" with "Classification:"
If you enter an 'ambiguous' search term such as 'tits', [Google] will assume you only wanted images that match the non-explicit meanings of the term unless you also included an unambiguous search term as well.
Right - Google "suppresses" the material that they decide is not appropriate. I.e., censorship.
This is more like classification than censorship. Do you also object to the fact that your local library doesn't Stephen King in the children's section?
You're comparing apples to oranges; a more accurate analogy would be,
Do you also object to the fact that your local library doesn't show Stephen King novels in their search database, unless one specifically searches for gory books written by New England weirdos?
I imagine it would be technically trivial to simply require that *both* numbers link to emergency services. It would be easy to do, and would make things a lot safer for visitors in either America or Europe who may only be familiar with one or the other.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, how is that important? She was told not to return to the store, so she used online ordering to try to get around it. She ordered 2 because she thought she could get 2, but the store was convinced she was trying to resell because of Incident 1 and don't have to sell her ANY.
Well, see, that's the problem - they did sell her 2 iPhones, via their online storefront. Because of that, the retailer had an obligation to allow her to pick up the items she had purchased from them.
In case you didn't know, taking someone's money for a product, then refusing to deliver said product, is a crime known as theft. Presuming the store refused to deliver the product she had paid for, the police had no obligation to remove her for trespassing; it's called the Doctrine of Clean Hands, and it basically means that the law has no reason to help you if you're committing a crime.
Apple doesn't make an Air with a detachable monitor that becomes a tablet, and that's what you want.
But I thought Lord Jobs always said no one would want a touchscreen laptop?
They used to. But you weren't expecting that, were you? It's okay, no one does.
Monty Python humor is always allowed :)
Also, in plenty of places, the local religious establishments take away people's rights for all sorts of reasons.
Perhaps, but we're talking about America, today, where none of that applies.
You think they wouldn't do it where you live, if they could?
Non sequitur in a discussion about secular governmental overreach.
+1 Zing!
...pick a job in which you can't be replaced by a computer.
Sure. I mean, why wouldn't the country need 360,000,000 coders? I can see no possible negative outcome...
Because VOTING DOESN'T MATTER, which is my entire point.
Ah.
Complaint withdrawn, then.
in points in history they did.
In points in history, the Germans rounded up "undesirables" and executed them en masse.
However, they don't do that now, which makes bringing it up irrelevant to this discussion.
The rest of your post I found to be spot on.
Just a quick example:
You're changing the front brake rotor; you don't want to open the hydraulic system, and you can't just let the caliper hang from it's line; what do you do?
If it's me, I just "engineer" up some sort of support, usually molded from an old coat hanger, that couples the caliper to the strut spring.
Another example:
You're doing an oil change on a Chevy 350, and your filter wrench breaks. How do you get the filter off?
I'll leave that one for you to ponder a bit, and come up with your own solution (terrible, confusing hint: when is a hammer not a hammer?).
That's the sort of engineering I was referring to.
"They will be sifting through these records looking for 'counter-insurgency activity,' supposedly with an eye to prevention. "
Uh... did no one else catch this? What insurgency exists domestically that they don't want people countering?
Why, theirs of course!
C'mon, you think they don't know that what they're doing is Constitutionally illegal? Believe that, and I've got some real estate spanning the East River you'll definitely want to invest in.
Domestic terrorism will be up one day
Yup.
Likely, the same day the acting government declares dissent to be an act of terrorism.
Perspective - it fucking matters.
As a debt-free person about to take out a student loan for a higher degree, I'm really considering just bailing to another country and take out a loan there to live. This country is beyond fucked.
I'd say do it, but good luck finding somewhere that's not just as fucked.
No, seriously, where are you going to go that A) doesn't have basically the same authoritarian shit as the US, and B) isn't a third-world shithole?
Canada? Might as well just stay in the States.
England? Out.
Australia/New Zealand? Out.
Russia? You're kidding, right?
I've heard good and bad things about Germany, so I'd say on the fence on that one.
I understand France has pretty good healthcare, but from what I understand it's fuck-all for pretty much everything else.
Switzerland - sure, if they'll give you a visa (even then, I hear that place is expensive).
Of course, you could always try not being a huge pussy, and instead at least attempt to transform the country for the better, instead of jumping ship like a traitorous, flaming rat.
We've become sufficiently terrorized as a nation, that instead of moving on with our lives, we've given up what supposedly we held most dear. Fuck our politicians (regardless of party), and the people who choose them for bullshit reasons.
We are Rome.
You bring the fiddle, I'll grab the matches.
Chasing boogeymen is generally hard
FTFY.
Riiiiiight... and I'm Mary, Queen of Scots!
What are they going to come up with next? Go from "crime" to "thought-crime" and "pre-crime"?
Yes.
Hell, with intent no longer being necessary for a criminal conviction, I'd say we're already half-way there.
and if you bring up third parties, I'll be forced to conclude you haven't yet gotten to the part of school where you learn about collective action problems.
You do realize that it's because of the loudly-expressed opinions of people like you, that third parties can't seem to gain any traction these days? FYI, In case you weren't aware, at one point in time both the Democrats and GOP were third parties.
Apparently you never got to the part of school where they taught you how bitching about the status quo while doing everything you can to support it, either consciously or subconsciously, makes you just another douche-bag who's part of the problem.
I'm not paranoid, but my government is.
Now that is a bumper sticker I can get behind (er, in front of)!
So it's basically more like the church trying to use surveillance and 5 year datamining to track sinners.
Except "The Church" doesn't take people's freedoms away for being suspected sinners.
Preface: I am not taking the side of the spammer here. You keep that shit out of my inbox, fucker.
That said, the real issue is the censorship of people's messages without their knowledge or consent. Granted, nobody wants to have to filter through millions of V1@gr@ ads just to read their mail, but on the same note, nobody wants someone else going through their mail and arbitrarily deciding what will and will not be delivered. I understand the purpose of the spam filter, and am glad it's there - but a secret spam filter? Not cool - as far as I know, those who administer said filter may decide, 'you know what? I vehemently disagree with the political philosophy of Grassfire/MoveOn/other political group, let's add them to the secret blacklist.'
Real world analogy - think of Yahoo/Hotmail as UPS - just because it's a private company doesn't mean they have the right to go through the shit you ship (or do they? I, personally, don't ship a lot of stuff...).
Shut your mouth, fool! The Billy Mays didn't need any artificial means to boost his sales skillz into the minds of men! His marketing kung fu transcended mere volume!
Seconded.
Mays had the unique ability to sound like he was yelling, even if he wasn't. Volume regulations would do nothing to protect you from Billy's voodoo voice.
The tackling is where the injury typically happens. The tazer put her on the ground and they restrained her. Get excited much?
RTFA much? If you had, you would know she was tazered after being tackled, not before.
But the lady clearly knew what was going on:
Jay said her mother bought two iPhones last Friday, and was told that was the limit. When she took video of others she claimed were buying more, the store manager asked her to leave.
And she was asked to leave and refused:
"The management of the store asked us to have her removed. The officer approached her, told her she wasn't welcome in the store, and she refused to leave," Nashua Police Capt. Bruce Hansen said.
Important part you left out:
The confrontation involving the Taser happened when Li went to the store on Monday to pick up two iPhones she ordered online.
So, here's how it appears the situation played out (Cliff's Notes for those too dumb or lazy to RTFA):
Incident 1 - Chinese lady goes to the store, tries to buy more than 2 iPhones, is told 2 is the limit. She pre-orders 2 iPhones, and begins to video the other customers, as she is convinced that the store has sold/is selling more than 2 iPhones to other people. Store manager asks her to leave, presumably for filming other customers. No charges files.
Incident 2 - Chinese lady goes back to the store to pick up the 2 iPhones she paid for. Store management tells her she must leave (no mention as to whether or not she had picked up the items she paid for, or if there was a new incident that prompted the request for removal). Confrontation ensues, cops attempt to confiscate the woman's cell phone and purse, then pin down and taze the 80 lb Chinese lady; some kid films it and posts on Youtube. Cops claim she was "resisting," because they always do.
Uh.. I don't think it's because the police were out of shape. They sure could have tackled and pinned her to the ground, which likely would have caused a hell of a lot more long-term injury to her than simply getting tazed would.
They did; for fuck's sake, man, it says so right in the damn summary!
I mean, shit! I see why nobody RTFA's anymore, it seems some folks can't even make it through the
No. Censorship would be if they barred you from seeing it all together.
Incorrect; censorship is defined as "The practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts." (per Google).
Except that the explicit images aren't suppressed.
A) I never said they were, I was correcting GP's incorrect definition of censorship.
B) Yes, actually, they are; in fact, you pretty much line out how in the rest of your post, albeit substituting the word "suppressing" with "Classification:"
If you enter an 'ambiguous' search term such as 'tits', [Google] will assume you only wanted images that match the non-explicit meanings of the term unless you also included an unambiguous search term as well.
Right - Google "suppresses" the material that they decide is not appropriate. I.e., censorship.
This is more like classification than censorship. Do you also object to the fact that your local library doesn't Stephen King in the children's section?
You're comparing apples to oranges; a more accurate analogy would be,
Do you also object to the fact that your local library doesn't show Stephen King novels in their search database, unless one specifically searches for gory books written by New England weirdos?
In which case, yes, I would object to that.
I imagine it would be technically trivial to simply require that *both* numbers link to emergency services. It would be easy to do, and would make things a lot safer for visitors in either America or Europe who may only be familiar with one or the other.
^ This.
End of discussion.