Replace "house" with "car" and yes, that's pretty much exactly what happen at the moment. If you leave your car doors unlocked and someone steals it and uses it to commit crime, do you really have an expectation of a hard-cre "right to privacy" that would prevent the police from stopping searching that car - even using deadly force against it?
Except that doesn't really work as an analogy, as in the case of botnets, no one is physically stealing your computer and using it for crime; they're stealing a portion of your resources. A more accurate analogy (yet still a very poor one) would be if you left your car doors unlocked, and someone used that as an opportunity to steal your tires, then committed a crime using said tires. Does that mean that law enforcement has a right to search your car, because the tires that came off it were used by someone else, who does not own them or the vehicle, in a crime?
Of course, upon reading what I just wrote, even I'm having trouble making heads or tails of it... precisely why I fucking hate car analogies in regards to cybercrime. Until the day comes that we have cars with their own remote repair drones ala The Phantom Menace Pod Racers, They just wont mesh up.
A non-networked computer is like a house, yes. A networked computer is much more like a car, because it "travels" and interacts with other computers and can break into and destroy them. You really need to know what you're doing when you own one.
No; a networked computer would be like a car, if cars had the capability to transport stuff without ever actually moving.
If you've failed to secure your computer then you've waived your right to privacy
Uh, no.
According to your "logic," or in this case lack thereof, if you leave the doors to your home or car unlocked, you've 'waived your right to privacy,' i.e. government agents are free to ransack your belongings, place surveillance devices in and around your home/car, take what they like, et. al. Fortunately for all Americans (even the stupid ones), we have a number of Constitutional rights and amendments that protect us from that sort of mentality.
Not only is that an ignorant way to view the world, it's incredibly dangerous to those of us who actually value our privacy, but don't want to live in a constant state of paranoid escalation, in which the only way to have even a modicum of privacy is to continually waste money on bigger and better locks. That's the sort of shit thought process that results in people getting sued by peeping toms for walking around the privacy of their own homes nude.
Sadly, reasonable people don't get much credence these days... perhaps it's because we don't scream loudly enough to be heard over the reactionary imbeciles?
I would imagine someone at NASA thought of that, but since they lacked an engineering degree, they were swiftly beaten with cudgels...
NASA Engineers: "There we go, fellas, the rover's done! Nothing to do now but stick it on a billion dollar rocket and send 'er off into space! Just have to hope it doesn't get too dusty too fast."
NASA Janitor, passing by: "Uh... couldn't you just stick, I dunno, some windshield wipers or somethin' on it?"
It's people who read things like my quote and assume I'm a fan of terrorists that scares me about Facebook postings being taken out of context and hurting people's careers....
No shit.
Here's a better example to use in the future, to avoid idiotic trolling:
How easy would it have been for the British Empire to dismantle the Sons of Liberty in the 1770s if all its members were on Facebook using their real names!?!
Well, avoid trolls who don't hate America, anyway.
Not everyone has experience hiring or seeking jobs in international markets. In some parts of the world, such as Canada and the US, the term resume is used to the exclusion of CV, in other parts of the world (e.g. the UK) it's the other way around. Plenty of people working and living in one market will not have heard or recognize the term used in the other. Particularly if they are not in management or HR.
Yup; I myself was wondering how one posts Constant Velocity joints on a website...
You can also buy C$ for US$1.00 each by using the menu in the upper right by your balance.
assuming it is not a 1:1 exchange rate (because, if it were, why the need to pay me in fake digital currency?)
It is 1:1. They use virtual currency so they don't have to deal with payment processing fees/regulations each time a transaction occurs, only when money is cashed out.
The price at which currency, especially fake currency, is sold is =/= to exchange rate; for example, I happen to have in my possession a stack of Indian Rupees, which I will gladly sell to you for $1 USD each. That doesn't mean the exchange rate between USD and Rupees is 1:1, it just means I'm a greedy asshole.
Average length of job: Half a day
Average pay of job: $12
That's 12 C$, which leads me to ask 2 important questions:
1) What's the exchange rate between C$ and USD?
2) According to TFA, C&P takes "a 15 percent cut when users convert their C$ into real dollars;" assuming it is not a 1:1 exchange rate (because, if it were, why the need to pay me in fake digital currency?), which end does the 15% come off?
In what way does attaching a GPS unit to a stationary vehicle parked on a public street control the property to which the tracker is attached? How does the existance of that tracker change in any way the use of the device to which it is attached (without the owner's knowledge?)
According to Missouri Statute 569.080, a person is guilty of 1st degree tampering ( a Class C Felony, FYI) if "He or she knowingly receives, possesses, sells, alters, defaces, destroys or unlawfully operates an automobile, airplane, motorcycle, motorboat or other motor-propelled vehicle without the consent of the owner thereof."
Note the emphasis.
YMMV depending on your state's laws regarding tampering.
Can you provide any explanation as to why it is so difficult and cost-prohibitive to obtain records from the government, especially considering the abundance of laws requiring government compliance with requests for information (AKA "Sunshine Laws")?
Is it simply a matter of government employee ineptitude, or have you found evidence of a more nefarious rationale?
1) Nowhere does the Fourth Amendment contain a caveat that implies our right to be free from search and seizure without warrant does not apply in public places;
This argument is irrelevant. Of course the fourth amendment applies in public places. The question is, is it either a search or a seizure to which the fourth amendment applies?
placing a GPS device on my vehicle without permission or warrant, for the purpose of conducting surveillance, is no different than searching the interior of said vehicle without permission or warrant.
Oh, but it is quite different. You even implicitely admit that by the terms you choose to use to refer to the actions. "Placing" vs. "searching". I can place a penny on the hood of your car without anyone beginning to think that by doing so I've conducted a search of any kind, other than the requisite search of my own pocket to locate a penny.
It is hard to call an act that involves nothing other than seeing what is plainly visible a "search", and in fact, "in plain sight" is a clear exception to the requirements to get a warrant. If you've left your bag of dope laying on the coffee table and you allow a cop to enter your house, when he sees that dope he can arrest you without having conducted a search or needing a warrant. If you stand in a public place and wave about what appears to be a bag of dope, the "plain sight" exception still applies, even though it is a public place.
And, I'll point out, your claim that placing the device is a search is a matter of opinion, and perhaps the crux of the SCOTUS case. The Circuit courts disagree with you.
From:
Using electronic devices to keep surveillance over a person may implicate the investigated individual's Fourth Amendment rights... Courts have held that this practice constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, which protects an individual's privacy rights for situations in which the person has a legitimate expectation of privacy.
...this practice would be in flagrant violation of Missouri statute.
MIssouri law is not federal law and applies nowhere except Missouri. In addition, one would have to consider what the actual law says, whether it says "illegal to follow a vehicle" or "illegal to monitor the actions of a vehicle", because attaching a GPS tracker is not "following". It is "monitoring". In other words, does the law prohibit an act of harassment or an act of tracking? How can you be harassed by something you don't know is taking place? A marked police vehicle following someone is clearly a visible act, and doing so for an extended period of time could reasonably be considered harassment. If I were to tape a penny to the underside of your vehicle and you didn't know it was there, am I harassing you?
RTFA; the incident and court in question are both in Missouri, and while federal laws supersedes state, state laws are still applicable unless contradicted.
I refuse to get into a semantics game; try cracking a thesaurus sometime, you will probably be surprised to discover that "following" and "monitoring" are synonyms.
A coin is not a surveillance device, and therefore is a nonsense analogy.
I don't know about you, but I park my car in my private garage, which is an enclosed structure on private property; Meaning,
Meaning this is outside the scope of the case being discussed. And meaning that they would need a warrant to enter your premises to attach the device or remove it.
How is that "outside the scope of the case?" They attached a surveillance device to a person's privately owned vehicle, which A) is private property, no matter where it is operated, and B) very well may be parked in a private, enclosed garage. While yo
From the linked story, there are two issues before the Supreme Court:
1. Does using a GPS device to follow you around without a warrant violate your Fourth Amendment rights? There's extra language in there, too: A key point seems to be that when they're following you around, they're doing so on the public streets. The argument could be made that following your car is different from a wiretap in this respect, in that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you're talking on the phone at home, but you have no such expectation when you leave the house and go out in public. Is following you via GPS really any different than tailing your car visually?
2. Does planting the GPS device without a warrant, in and of itself, violate your Fourth Amendment rights? Maybe -- but one could argue that by planting the device, they have no more "searched" you than they would have had they driven past your house and seen the car in the driveway. They haven't done much more than a parking cop does when he puts chalk on the tire of your car. And they've haven't "seized" anything -- in fact, you now have something that you didn't have before.
These seem like complicated issues and I'm interested to hear what the Supremes think about them.
Some problems with that argument:
1) Nowhere does the Fourth Amendment contain a caveat that implies our right to be free from search and seizure without warrant does not apply in public places; in fact, I would contend that ensuring the populace is able to travel freely is a big part of why that particular right is enumerated. Had the British Empire been able to track the movements of General Washington with such precision, you can bet there would be no such thing as the United States of America.
2) Even though it is often operated on "public streets," my vehicle is still private property and subject to applicable laws; placing a GPS device on my vehicle without permission or warrant, for the purpose of conducting surveillance, is no different than searching the interior of said vehicle without permission or warrant.
3) Can't speak for anywhere else, but I know in Missouri it is illegal for an officer to follow a vehicle for more than a proscribed distance without a warrant, else the officer can be prosecuted for harassment. So, unless the cops are pulling me over and removing/reattaching the device every few miles, or they have a warrant, this practice would be in flagrant violation of Missouri statute.
4) I don't know about you, but I park my car in my private garage, which is an enclosed structure on private property; Meaning, when I come home and park at the end of the day, the police have effectively placed a piece of surveillance equipment in my home without my permission or a lawful warrant.
Basically, my stance on this and all related issues is thus: If law enforcement has such a hard time obeying the Constitution by obtaining a lawful warrant, perhaps it's time we find them something more productive for them to do, or start culling the herd.
2) La de da, I'm a building a bridge. I sweat over a keyboard for 850 hours of computer simulation to prove that bolt #374904 must be a size 10-24 NC because if some idiot installs a 8-32 NC or smaller the bridge will collapse when loaded with precisely 17 pickup trucks plus one housefly. Cheap businessman wants to install a smaller 8-32 bolt because live and let live, man, my right to tell him what to do ends at the tip of his screwdriver, or some psuedo-libertarian stuff like that. No, F you businessman, I'm going full on technocrat control freak on you and 10-24 NC bolts are getting installed there or its off to the camps with you.
Whoops! You missed something on #2. If you're a libertarian, then that bridge is your capital investment, in which case, you have a vested interest in making sure your reputation allows you to build future bridges, hence you care about the bolt selection.
That's not technocrat. That's self-preservation right there in basic free market terms!
Not to mention, to a libertarian, the businessman supplanting the engineer's plans places the onus of responsibility on the businessman for any potential failures caused by the use of substandard fasteners, as well as the failure of interconnected systems.
Personally, I think "do whatever empirically (or theoretically if experimental evidence is absent) works best, as best we can, regularly review the results and add them to our decision making body of evidence, all while not trampling human rights" is a great party platform;
I completely agree, but you know as well as I that it would only be a matter of time before some pretentious, self-rightous dillhole started screaming about how your advancement of humanity is 'trampling their human rights,' even when said dillhole is in no way involved or affected by the outcome.
Stem cell research and abortion provide two perfect examples of the circumstances I'm referring to.
>Don't be so hard on yourself. With tens of thousands of security cameras across your cities,
That is mostly the brits. But I grant you the point.
> rampant hoplophobia,
With a murder rate less than a 6th of that rate in gun loving USA, I consider this wise.
Non sequitur. What are your population numbers, in relation to that of the US? Statistically, there is no causality between gun ownership and murder rates in the US; quite the opposite in many places.
This may be slightly off-topic, but don't some Satellite/Cable companies do similar things?
Can't speak for everyone but the local cable company here, MediaCon: It's free to pay online, but whaddayaknow, the online payment system is perpetually broken - so you have to call in anyway, at which point they inform you there's a $5 fee for paying over the phone.
I've gotten to where I just deliver the payment to their office in person; that way I at least get to bitch to a fellow American instead of "Bob" in Nagpur, India.
I wouldn't go that far; I saw How to Train Your Dragon in 3D and it was pretty Baracas (great example of a good recent movie).
I would recommend they stop making live action films specifically for 3D. Partially, because not everyone has a 3D TV and thus DVD sales may suffer - 2D implementations of 3D movies are never as good as they could be, and I'm always left wondering, "Why the fuck does every other scene feature some random item flying into the camera?" The main issue, for me at least, is that "made for 3D" live action movies just feel so damn... cheesy.
Well, I had intended to respond to this royal asshat's baseless assumptions regarding my rationale, but you've done a fine job of covering the major points quite succinctly. Commendable, sir.
The only thing I can think to add is that perhaps OP is the one who has some growing up to do.
Slashdot Mirror
Replace "house" with "car" and yes, that's pretty much exactly what happen at the moment. If you leave your car doors unlocked and someone steals it and uses it to commit crime, do you really have an expectation of a hard-cre "right to privacy" that would prevent the police from stopping searching that car - even using deadly force against it?
Except that doesn't really work as an analogy, as in the case of botnets, no one is physically stealing your computer and using it for crime; they're stealing a portion of your resources. A more accurate analogy (yet still a very poor one) would be if you left your car doors unlocked, and someone used that as an opportunity to steal your tires, then committed a crime using said tires. Does that mean that law enforcement has a right to search your car, because the tires that came off it were used by someone else, who does not own them or the vehicle, in a crime?
Of course, upon reading what I just wrote, even I'm having trouble making heads or tails of it... precisely why I fucking hate car analogies in regards to cybercrime. Until the day comes that we have cars with their own remote repair drones ala The Phantom Menace Pod Racers, They just wont mesh up.
A non-networked computer is like a house, yes. A networked computer is much more like a car, because it "travels" and interacts with other computers and can break into and destroy them. You really need to know what you're doing when you own one.
No; a networked computer would be like a car, if cars had the capability to transport stuff without ever actually moving.
If you've failed to secure your computer then you've waived your right to privacy
Uh, no.
According to your "logic," or in this case lack thereof, if you leave the doors to your home or car unlocked, you've 'waived your right to privacy,' i.e. government agents are free to ransack your belongings, place surveillance devices in and around your home/car, take what they like, et. al. Fortunately for all Americans (even the stupid ones), we have a number of Constitutional rights and amendments that protect us from that sort of mentality.
Not only is that an ignorant way to view the world, it's incredibly dangerous to those of us who actually value our privacy, but don't want to live in a constant state of paranoid escalation, in which the only way to have even a modicum of privacy is to continually waste money on bigger and better locks. That's the sort of shit thought process that results in people getting sued by peeping toms for walking around the privacy of their own homes nude.
They're not lab rats, they're reptile food!
Bam, fixed that business model for ya.
All our definitions are oriented around our nitrogen-based atmosphere.
FTFY.
Are you actually that ignorant and obtuse, or just trying really, really hard to sound that way?
Considering, I would call you "reasonable."
Sadly, reasonable people don't get much credence these days... perhaps it's because we don't scream loudly enough to be heard over the reactionary imbeciles?
I would imagine someone at NASA thought of that, but since they lacked an engineering degree, they were swiftly beaten with cudgels...
...
...
:O
NASA Engineers: "There we go, fellas, the rover's done! Nothing to do now but stick it on a billion dollar rocket and send 'er off into space! Just have to hope it doesn't get too dusty too fast."
NASA Janitor, passing by: "Uh... couldn't you just stick, I dunno, some windshield wipers or somethin' on it?"
NASA Engineers:
:O
...
:|
...
>:*
...
*thump*
It's people who read things like my quote and assume I'm a fan of terrorists that scares me about Facebook postings being taken out of context and hurting people's careers....
No shit.
Here's a better example to use in the future, to avoid idiotic trolling:
How easy would it have been for the British Empire to dismantle the Sons of Liberty in the 1770s if all its members were on Facebook using their real names!?!
Well, avoid trolls who don't hate America, anyway.
I'm going to skip the whole 3D TV craze and hold out for a 4D one. One extra D has to be better, right?
Add another 4 and another D and then we'll be in business!
So you're a teenager?
Not everyone has experience hiring or seeking jobs in international markets. In some parts of the world, such as Canada and the US, the term resume is used to the exclusion of CV, in other parts of the world (e.g. the UK) it's the other way around. Plenty of people working and living in one market will not have heard or recognize the term used in the other. Particularly if they are not in management or HR.
Yup; I myself was wondering how one posts Constant Velocity joints on a website...
1) What's the exchange rate between C$ and USD?
From the C&P site:
You can also buy C$ for US$1.00 each by using the menu in the upper right by your balance.
assuming it is not a 1:1 exchange rate (because, if it were, why the need to pay me in fake digital currency?)
It is 1:1. They use virtual currency so they don't have to deal with payment processing fees/regulations each time a transaction occurs, only when money is cashed out.
The price at which currency, especially fake currency, is sold is =/= to exchange rate; for example, I happen to have in my possession a stack of Indian Rupees, which I will gladly sell to you for $1 USD each. That doesn't mean the exchange rate between USD and Rupees is 1:1, it just means I'm a greedy asshole.
Average length of job: Half a day
Average pay of job: $12
That's 12 C$, which leads me to ask 2 important questions:
1) What's the exchange rate between C$ and USD?
2) According to TFA, C&P takes "a 15 percent cut when users convert their C$ into real dollars;" assuming it is not a 1:1 exchange rate (because, if it were, why the need to pay me in fake digital currency?), which end does the 15% come off?
In what way does attaching a GPS unit to a stationary vehicle parked on a public street control the property to which the tracker is attached? How does the existance of that tracker change in any way the use of the device to which it is attached (without the owner's knowledge?)
According to Missouri Statute 569.080, a person is guilty of 1st degree tampering ( a Class C Felony, FYI) if "He or she knowingly receives, possesses, sells, alters, defaces, destroys or unlawfully operates an automobile, airplane, motorcycle, motorboat or other motor-propelled vehicle without the consent of the owner thereof."
Note the emphasis.
YMMV depending on your state's laws regarding tampering.
After all, you don't need to hide if you haven't done anything wrong.
Right; because Justice is blind, and no one get jailed over bullshit.
now, do us all a favor and take a flyin' fuck at a rollin' doughnut, you hideous troll you.
Can you provide any explanation as to why it is so difficult and cost-prohibitive to obtain records from the government, especially considering the abundance of laws requiring government compliance with requests for information (AKA "Sunshine Laws")?
Is it simply a matter of government employee ineptitude, or have you found evidence of a more nefarious rationale?
1) Nowhere does the Fourth Amendment contain a caveat that implies our right to be free from search and seizure without warrant does not apply in public places;
This argument is irrelevant. Of course the fourth amendment applies in public places. The question is, is it either a search or a seizure to which the fourth amendment applies?
placing a GPS device on my vehicle without permission or warrant, for the purpose of conducting surveillance, is no different than searching the interior of said vehicle without permission or warrant.
Oh, but it is quite different. You even implicitely admit that by the terms you choose to use to refer to the actions. "Placing" vs. "searching". I can place a penny on the hood of your car without anyone beginning to think that by doing so I've conducted a search of any kind, other than the requisite search of my own pocket to locate a penny.
It is hard to call an act that involves nothing other than seeing what is plainly visible a "search", and in fact, "in plain sight" is a clear exception to the requirements to get a warrant. If you've left your bag of dope laying on the coffee table and you allow a cop to enter your house, when he sees that dope he can arrest you without having conducted a search or needing a warrant. If you stand in a public place and wave about what appears to be a bag of dope, the "plain sight" exception still applies, even though it is a public place.
And, I'll point out, your claim that placing the device is a search is a matter of opinion, and perhaps the crux of the SCOTUS case. The Circuit courts disagree with you.
From: Using electronic devices to keep surveillance over a person may implicate the investigated individual's Fourth Amendment rights... Courts have held that this practice constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment, which protects an individual's privacy rights for situations in which the person has a legitimate expectation of privacy.
...this practice would be in flagrant violation of Missouri statute.
MIssouri law is not federal law and applies nowhere except Missouri. In addition, one would have to consider what the actual law says, whether it says "illegal to follow a vehicle" or "illegal to monitor the actions of a vehicle", because attaching a GPS tracker is not "following". It is "monitoring". In other words, does the law prohibit an act of harassment or an act of tracking? How can you be harassed by something you don't know is taking place? A marked police vehicle following someone is clearly a visible act, and doing so for an extended period of time could reasonably be considered harassment. If I were to tape a penny to the underside of your vehicle and you didn't know it was there, am I harassing you?
RTFA; the incident and court in question are both in Missouri, and while federal laws supersedes state, state laws are still applicable unless contradicted.
I refuse to get into a semantics game; try cracking a thesaurus sometime, you will probably be surprised to discover that "following" and "monitoring" are synonyms.
A coin is not a surveillance device, and therefore is a nonsense analogy.
I don't know about you, but I park my car in my private garage, which is an enclosed structure on private property; Meaning,
Meaning this is outside the scope of the case being discussed. And meaning that they would need a warrant to enter your premises to attach the device or remove it.
How is that "outside the scope of the case?" They attached a surveillance device to a person's privately owned vehicle, which A) is private property, no matter where it is operated, and B) very well may be parked in a private, enclosed garage. While yo
Heeey, that's dangerous talk, Citizen; someone might hear that and accuse you of ThoughtCrime.
No sweat, though, just head on down to your neighborhood re-education center and we'll scrub those subversive thoughts right out of your cranium!
From the linked story, there are two issues before the Supreme Court:
1. Does using a GPS device to follow you around without a warrant violate your Fourth Amendment rights? There's extra language in there, too: A key point seems to be that when they're following you around, they're doing so on the public streets. The argument could be made that following your car is different from a wiretap in this respect, in that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy when you're talking on the phone at home, but you have no such expectation when you leave the house and go out in public. Is following you via GPS really any different than tailing your car visually?
2. Does planting the GPS device without a warrant, in and of itself, violate your Fourth Amendment rights? Maybe -- but one could argue that by planting the device, they have no more "searched" you than they would have had they driven past your house and seen the car in the driveway. They haven't done much more than a parking cop does when he puts chalk on the tire of your car. And they've haven't "seized" anything -- in fact, you now have something that you didn't have before.
These seem like complicated issues and I'm interested to hear what the Supremes think about them.
Some problems with that argument:
1) Nowhere does the Fourth Amendment contain a caveat that implies our right to be free from search and seizure without warrant does not apply in public places; in fact, I would contend that ensuring the populace is able to travel freely is a big part of why that particular right is enumerated. Had the British Empire been able to track the movements of General Washington with such precision, you can bet there would be no such thing as the United States of America.
2) Even though it is often operated on "public streets," my vehicle is still private property and subject to applicable laws; placing a GPS device on my vehicle without permission or warrant, for the purpose of conducting surveillance, is no different than searching the interior of said vehicle without permission or warrant.
3) Can't speak for anywhere else, but I know in Missouri it is illegal for an officer to follow a vehicle for more than a proscribed distance without a warrant, else the officer can be prosecuted for harassment. So, unless the cops are pulling me over and removing/reattaching the device every few miles, or they have a warrant, this practice would be in flagrant violation of Missouri statute.
4) I don't know about you, but I park my car in my private garage, which is an enclosed structure on private property; Meaning, when I come home and park at the end of the day, the police have effectively placed a piece of surveillance equipment in my home without my permission or a lawful warrant.
Basically, my stance on this and all related issues is thus: If law enforcement has such a hard time obeying the Constitution by obtaining a lawful warrant, perhaps it's time we find them something more productive for them to do, or start culling the herd.
2) La de da, I'm a building a bridge. I sweat over a keyboard for 850 hours of computer simulation to prove that bolt #374904 must be a size 10-24 NC because if some idiot installs a 8-32 NC or smaller the bridge will collapse when loaded with precisely 17 pickup trucks plus one housefly. Cheap businessman wants to install a smaller 8-32 bolt because live and let live, man, my right to tell him what to do ends at the tip of his screwdriver, or some psuedo-libertarian stuff like that. No, F you businessman, I'm going full on technocrat control freak on you and 10-24 NC bolts are getting installed there or its off to the camps with you.
Whoops! You missed something on #2. If you're a libertarian, then that bridge is your capital investment, in which case, you have a vested interest in making sure your reputation allows you to build future bridges, hence you care about the bolt selection. That's not technocrat. That's self-preservation right there in basic free market terms!
Not to mention, to a libertarian, the businessman supplanting the engineer's plans places the onus of responsibility on the businessman for any potential failures caused by the use of substandard fasteners, as well as the failure of interconnected systems.
Personally, I think "do whatever empirically (or theoretically if experimental evidence is absent) works best, as best we can, regularly review the results and add them to our decision making body of evidence, all while not trampling human rights" is a great party platform;
I completely agree, but you know as well as I that it would only be a matter of time before some pretentious, self-rightous dillhole started screaming about how your advancement of humanity is 'trampling their human rights,' even when said dillhole is in no way involved or affected by the outcome.
Stem cell research and abortion provide two perfect examples of the circumstances I'm referring to.
>Don't be so hard on yourself. With tens of thousands of security cameras across your cities, That is mostly the brits. But I grant you the point.
> rampant hoplophobia, With a murder rate less than a 6th of that rate in gun loving USA, I consider this wise.
Non sequitur. What are your population numbers, in relation to that of the US?
Statistically, there is no causality between gun ownership and murder rates in the US; quite the opposite in many places.
Europe, too.
... Last I heard it was in the [US] a burglar could sue the owner of the house he broke in to if he broke his leg during the heist. And win.
Only in the People's Republic of California.
This may be slightly off-topic, but don't some Satellite/Cable companies do similar things?
Can't speak for everyone but the local cable company here, MediaCon: It's free to pay online, but whaddayaknow, the online payment system is perpetually broken - so you have to call in anyway, at which point they inform you there's a $5 fee for paying over the phone.
I've gotten to where I just deliver the payment to their office in person; that way I at least get to bitch to a fellow American instead of "Bob" in Nagpur, India.
And ditch 3D.
I wouldn't go that far; I saw How to Train Your Dragon in 3D and it was pretty Baracas (great example of a good recent movie).
I would recommend they stop making live action films specifically for 3D. Partially, because not everyone has a 3D TV and thus DVD sales may suffer - 2D implementations of 3D movies are never as good as they could be, and I'm always left wondering, "Why the fuck does every other scene feature some random item flying into the camera?" The main issue, for me at least, is that "made for 3D" live action movies just feel so damn... cheesy.
my mom lied to me
Aww, she didn't lie, she was mistaken!
It doesn't become a lie unless she refuses to admit to it.
Well, I had intended to respond to this royal asshat's baseless assumptions regarding my rationale, but you've done a fine job of covering the major points quite succinctly. Commendable, sir.
The only thing I can think to add is that perhaps OP is the one who has some growing up to do.