Nothing - someone mispercieved your response as a claim that Muslims are inherently more violent than other groups, and things appear to have snowballed from there.
The reality is, "most generalizations are false, including this one."
Which means the hotel fires the concierge, and there's no one to bring you a Sprite at 2 am when you're vomiting the last ounce of fluid your body held prior to getting food poisoning from the hotel restaurant earlier that night.
Recently cops have done things like murder handcuffed suspects in the back of their patrol cars and gotten the deaths marked down as "suicides," chase down and relentlessly beat homeless people for being homeless and inconvenient, and gunned down deaf kids for "not complying with an... order." All of these actions have gone unpunished.
Obviously they don't give a fuck whether we see what they do or not.
Go on to YouTube and watch any of the countless videos of cops being fascist assholes, all caught on their own dashcams. Then note how few if any of these criminals with badges actually recieved a punishment befitting their crime.
Then tell me again how having record of police driving habits will automatically lead to them earning back the public's trust, knowing all the while how cops rarely see consequences.
If a LOT of people tried to make a run on the banks, the government would allow then to limit access to your money. Pretty sure that exact thing either happened or almost happened during the crash of 2008.
Also, the issue of cops confiscating money has nothing to do with "drunks" as you say, but is rather a "legal" means of relieving people who have committed no crime of their money - it's called civil forfeiture, and cops aren't the only ones doing it. Cross reference that term with the city of Philadelphia, and prepare to be utterly disgusted.
When the Constitution was written, "income" was defined as "profits from business transactions," not money exchanged for labor. In other words, the entire modern concept of "income taxes" is a complete FUCK YOU to the nation's less well off population.
I don't blame you for failing to understand the distinction; after all, it has been a century since the wealthy pulled off that particular scam.
Just wait until Ballmer starts pushing for H1b's for players...
Players perhaps not, but there are janitors, technicians, AV guys, and a host of other positions that he very well could replace with low wage immigrant workers.
Like the time the ACLU fought for the KKK's right to protest on the courthouse steps? Or rather, are you making a snap judgement based on a preconceived notion you got not from your own research into the organization, but from some media outlet?
The sort of people who pay slave wages probably consider 6.8 hours of "free time" a day more than adequate for such self-catering needs as sustinance and rest. Don't wanna be too soft on 'em, ya know.
Oh right, because your government has laws that remove a person's right to speech if said government deems said speech to have some vaguely negative effect on something, somewhere. So basically the only information the public recieves regarding ongoing issues is the nicely scrubbed, sanitized version approved by TPTB.
I prefer our way, thanks. Much better to receive the info and make my own informed judgement. Besides, 'trial by media' is only really an issue because of stupid people who believe everything their favorite echo chamber tells them, so I vote we go for the root cause.
Let's imagine a scenario whereby "cyber-attacker X" takes over an air-traffic control system and starts crashing planes for ransom. I can see the argument that that's a life-worthy crime.
Intentionally endangering the lives of hundreds of other people is already a life-worthy crime, no new laws needed.
"Devil in the details" indeed, perhaps you should consider knowing them yourself.
If you're a kid and your mother says you can use the computer for 10 minutes, but you use it for 15 minutes, that's technically carrying out "an unauthorized act on a computer."
In the UK, that action can now carry a sentence of up to life in prison (as defined in the UK, anyways).
Does that seem a rational and fitting punishment?
Look - it's already illegal to break into other people's systems; it's also already illegal to damage things in the process. So what justifies this new law and the unusual sentencing guidelines attached?
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing - someone mispercieved your response as a claim that Muslims are inherently more violent than other groups, and things appear to have snowballed from there.
The reality is, "most generalizations are false, including this one."
Which means the hotel fires the concierge, and there's no one to bring you a Sprite at 2 am when you're vomiting the last ounce of fluid your body held prior to getting food poisoning from the hotel restaurant earlier that night.
Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Recently cops have done things like murder handcuffed suspects in the back of their patrol cars and gotten the deaths marked down as "suicides," chase down and relentlessly beat homeless people for being homeless and inconvenient, and gunned down deaf kids for "not complying with an... order." All of these actions have gone unpunished.
Obviously they don't give a fuck whether we see what they do or not.
Go on to YouTube and watch any of the countless videos of cops being fascist assholes, all caught on their own dashcams. Then note how few if any of these criminals with badges actually recieved a punishment befitting their crime.
Then tell me again how having record of police driving habits will automatically lead to them earning back the public's trust, knowing all the while how cops rarely see consequences.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/in...
If a LOT of people tried to make a run on the banks, the government would allow then to limit access to your money. Pretty sure that exact thing either happened or almost happened during the crash of 2008.
Also, the issue of cops confiscating money has nothing to do with "drunks" as you say, but is rather a "legal" means of relieving people who have committed no crime of their money - it's called civil forfeiture, and cops aren't the only ones doing it. Cross reference that term with the city of Philadelphia, and prepare to be utterly disgusted.
So log in to post, thus earning a chance at mod points, so you can be, in your own mind, the one Guy who uses them correctly.
Posting as AC then bitching about the mod system is like staying home on election day then whining that your vote didn't count.
I used to carry a pocket watch when I was a teen, but I found having to dig in my pocket to know what time it is too inconvenient.
Ironic, considering.
When the Constitution was written, "income" was defined as "profits from business transactions," not money exchanged for labor. In other words, the entire modern concept of "income taxes" is a complete FUCK YOU to the nation's less well off population.
I don't blame you for failing to understand the distinction; after all, it has been a century since the wealthy pulled off that particular scam.
Just wait until Ballmer starts pushing for H1b's for players...
Players perhaps not, but there are janitors, technicians, AV guys, and a host of other positions that he very well could replace with low wage immigrant workers.
I agree. Close your bank accounts, use check cashing services and pay everything with cash...
Until you get pulled over by a police officer and he confiscates all your cash under the exact same fucked up law.
Ever seen a big government that wasn't bad? I sure can't think of any.
All Perhaps love bigger rockets.
Fuck.
You.
Autocorrect.
That should say "Kerbals " not Perhaps. Joke ruined.
That's all well and good, but will they earn enough science points to unlock the next tier of equipment?
I vote bigger rockets. All Perhaps love bigger rockets.
Lol, I see what you did there
Like the time the ACLU fought for the KKK's right to protest on the courthouse steps? Or rather, are you making a snap judgement based on a preconceived notion you got not from your own research into the organization, but from some media outlet?
My guess, the latter.
Considering the general working conditions, I wouldn't be surprised if they made the migrants sleep on pallets in the basement.
A) so would a fence
B) cops have no interest in keeping kids off your lawn.
I didn't know Occupy, the Tea Party, gun owners, and people who buy stuff with cash were "barely anybody."
All groups that were put on a terrorist watch list at some point or another, and I know I left a bunch out.
The sort of people who pay slave wages probably consider 6.8 hours of "free time" a day more than adequate for such self-catering needs as sustinance and rest. Don't wanna be too soft on 'em, ya know.
Oh right, because your government has laws that remove a person's right to speech if said government deems said speech to have some vaguely negative effect on something, somewhere. So basically the only information the public recieves regarding ongoing issues is the nicely scrubbed, sanitized version approved by TPTB.
I prefer our way, thanks. Much better to receive the info and make my own informed judgement. Besides, 'trial by media' is only really an issue because of stupid people who believe everything their favorite echo chamber tells them, so I vote we go for the root cause.
Right, because common folk like you or I get a say in the matter, regardless of nationality.
Let's imagine a scenario whereby "cyber-attacker X" takes over an air-traffic control system and starts crashing planes for ransom. I can see the argument that that's a life-worthy crime.
Intentionally endangering the lives of hundreds of other people is already a life-worthy crime, no new laws needed.
"Devil in the details" indeed, perhaps you should consider knowing them yourself.
If you're a kid and your mother says you can use the computer for 10 minutes, but you use it for 15 minutes, that's technically carrying out "an unauthorized act on a computer."
In the UK, that action can now carry a sentence of up to life in prison (as defined in the UK, anyways).
Does that seem a rational and fitting punishment?
Look - it's already illegal to break into other people's systems; it's also already illegal to damage things in the process. So what justifies this new law and the unusual sentencing guidelines attached?
To you that's what "unauthorized use" means; to the government, it means whatever the fuck they want it to mean.