Every individual German household is forced by "law" (Germans love laws) to cough up 17.50€ a month for crap public content like this, even if they do not subscribe to, have access or own a TV capable of reviving it.
Had this monkey-rabbt nonsense been produced in Germany, then the animals would likely have alread had the opportunity to fly to the Moon and back, and anyone unwilling to pay for it would have their bank accounts confiscated or spend at least 61 days in jail for not paying their "TV License" - Happy 4th of July from the GEZ Slaves in Germany!
I'm not sure if that's the right word for it, but this seem to be yet another step in the wrong direction.
I wonder how much more restrictive our lives will become before people start to wake up to what is going on?
There is a fundamental difference between intersections with traffic lights in Europe vs North-America, which I think is leading to confusion in this conversation.
In North-America traffic lights are positioned on the far-side of intersections and point into the intersection. In America all traffic light activity is typically visible to all traffic participants (including pedestrians) at an intersection at all times, so "don't block the box" laws make sense.
In Europe traffic lights are typically** positioned on the near side of intersections and point away from the intersection in their respective directions.
This is an important difference.
If a driver in Europe (right hand drive such as here in Germany) is waiting to turn left at a red light s/he will wait until the light turns green then (slowly) pull into the intersection and wait until oncoming traffic has cleared (or until it is safe) before turning left. It is important to understand that at the point a driver *enters* an intersection that *no* traffic light activity any longer visible to the driver, so s/he WILL eventually have the opportunity (and obligation so as not to block cross-traffic) to turn left, at the latest once the oncoming traffic is presented with a red light. Cars behind that driver are already presented with a red light and may not pass through it in order to enter the intersection.
This differences can be quite interesting, as well as dangerous to the uninformed. For example European tourists visiting the United States are highly likely to make the dangerous mistake of driving right up to a traffic light only to then realize that they are sitting in the middle the intersection. Another mistake that Europeans might make when first driving in America is to come to a screeching halt in the middle an intersection while turning left because they are not used being "presented" with a red light without having to stop.
Americans drivers first visiting Europe may have a tenancy to stop much further back from an intersection at a red light than is necessary, and American pedestrians are sometimes confused at first by the lack of visible traffic lights for cars, which I think might be one reason why Europeans (a least here in Germany) pay such close attention to crosswalk signals. As a pedestrian in Europe only crosswalk signal activity is visible whereas in America pedestrians have a tendency to pay more attention to what the car traffic lights are doing so as to know when it is safe to cross.
**Americans driving in right-handed Europe (not Ireland/UK) should also take care when turning right (This happened to me, but I was lucky enough to get out of a ticket.) that they are not turning into a cross-walk where a red light may be positioned pointing to the left *into* the the intersection. Yep, turning to the right into a traffic light clearly intended for the cross-traffic is considered driving through a red light!
To put it simply, in Europe knowledge of traffic light activity at an intersection is on a need-to-know basis only, whereas in America it's public knowledge.
What could possibly go wrong? Nothing. it's for our own health and safety. Don't you want to stay healthy?
Are these agencies going to be covered under HIPAA? Nice one, since when does any law apply when national security is at stake? I predict this will more or less put the private information of pretty much everyone into pretty much every government agency, and that this will be hacked and leaked 10 ways from Sunday. It already is, so what's the big deal?
..the 4th amendment has never been extended. Advances in technology were finally found to be covered by it
I always cringe whenever I hear the word "to find" used like this as if they actually uncovered some previously unknown truth hidden within the Constitution. These actions were never "found" to be in compliance with the Constitution. Instead they were just declared to be after limited tenuous debate. Even a 9th grader can recognise this as a blatant violation of our basic rights, but hey, the Supreme Court "found" that it's ok, so there nothing left for us to do than just suck it up.
TSA employees and similar government workers might as well all be on welfare for all the good they are doing. Why not just give them the same money that they are being paid to carry out their jobs at the TSA but let them stay home. What's the difference between a dollar handed out as welfare for doing nothing or that same dollar being handed out to a TSA employee? The money ultimately comes from the same tax source.
Not to be too pedantic, but the by the "Fed" are you referring the Federal Government or the Federal Reserve? The "Fed" is the the Federal Reserve. I realize it's all cool and stuff to shorten long words, but sometimes doing so can completely change the meaning of what you are trying to say.
It's nice to see Brussels actually making itself useful. Next they should work at banning mandatory TV licensing which is obnoxious and should not exist in the 21st century.
It wasn't all that long ago when the only way people were able to "come together" was to actually meet face to face. Before the likes to Facebook and Myspace... the only way to have any contact with lost former acquaintances was to do a lot or research or travel "back home" to find them. With services such as Facebook what would have been long lost acquaintances now bombard our news feeds with useless information 24-7. Fragmentation may have been the norm in the past, and Facebook may be a fad today, but social networking is here to stay. And I am over 45 years old. Now get off my lawn.
I sense derision in your comment. If you are so fond of the BBC then YOU can give them money, but as for the rest of us we shouldn't be FORCED to pay for a license for the simple act of owning a television set. We no longer live in the 1950s. If the BBC is so worried that people will receive their signal without paying then they should encrypt the bloody thing and make it only available to subscribers.
Too many people equate "The Law" with morality and consider it a forgone conclusion that whatever "The Law" states must be adhered to, and if violated must be enforced at all costs. Unfortunately there exist just too many unjust, absurd, horrific, ridiculous, and outdated laws such as, Jim Crow, Apartheid, FATCA, the Patriot Act, FATCA, the Nuremberg Laws,.....compulsory TV licensing *even if you don't have a TV*.... Most people who are negatively affected by such laws are usually met with derision and marginalized and told to suck it up by the majority of society simply because "It's the law!". It's a shame that we all live in societies that have placed "the Law" above justice and common decency.
Imagine you're selling someone fertilizer. Now if that person is using that fertilizer to build a bomb, you should of course not be responsible. Also it's unreasonable that you should have to check what they do with this fertilizer. But if you check, find out they build bombs with it, and continue to sell them the fertilizer knowing that they use it for building bombs you are of course also responsible for the deaths those bombs cause.
A more accurate analogy would be this: Imagine that your company maintains an independent telephone directory service. A fertilizer company whose number happens to be listed in your directory (un)knowingly sells "illegal bomb-making materials" to "terrorists" who happened to your directory service to find the fertilizer company's number. After a bombing attack your telephone directory service company is then held liable because you didn't happen to scrutinise your publicly accessible database close enough to weed out any potential bad guys who might receive calls as a result of you having listed their telephone numbers.
Maybe you do not have a US pilot certificate but US ones do not have photographs.
http://www.aopa.org/Advocacy/Regulatory-,-a-,-Certification-Policy/Regulatory-Brief-Photo-Pilot-Certificates.aspx
"The terrorist acts in 2001 prompted passage of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA), enacted on Nov. 19, 2001, which called for the under secretary of Transportation to consider a requirement for a photo ID pilot certificate. In order to provide a simple, inexpensive, timely means to positively identify pilots, AOPA asked the FAA to change the rules to require pilots to carry a government-issued photo ID along with their pilot certificate. As a result, the FAA changed 14 CFR 61.3(a): Requirement for Certificates, Ratings, and Authorizations, which requires all flight crewmembers of an aircraft to carry a pilot certificate and government-issued photo identification."
Effectively we do have "national ID cards" even though we don't call them that. Our state issued driver licenses (or non-driver's ID) are linked to our federally issued social security numbers which serves the same purpose. Try getting a driver license or non-driver's ID without a social security number.
It used to be that every time news like this came out I would think that things couldn't get much worse, but recently I have come to the conclusion that things can and will continue to get a lot worse. I now wonder just how much worse will it get? What's going to be next and when will the madness stop?
Slashdot Mirror
Cells are designed to hold on to their potassium...
Cells are not designed.
Every individual German household is forced by "law" (Germans love laws) to cough up 17.50€ a month for crap public content like this, even if they do not subscribe to, have access or own a TV capable of reviving it. Had this monkey-rabbt nonsense been produced in Germany, then the animals would likely have alread had the opportunity to fly to the Moon and back, and anyone unwilling to pay for it would have their bank accounts confiscated or spend at least 61 days in jail for not paying their "TV License" - Happy 4th of July from the GEZ Slaves in Germany!
I'm not sure if that's the right word for it, but this seem to be yet another step in the wrong direction. I wonder how much more restrictive our lives will become before people start to wake up to what is going on?
There is a fundamental difference between intersections with traffic lights in Europe vs North-America, which I think is leading to confusion in this conversation. In North-America traffic lights are positioned on the far-side of intersections and point into the intersection. In America all traffic light activity is typically visible to all traffic participants (including pedestrians) at an intersection at all times, so "don't block the box" laws make sense.
In Europe traffic lights are typically** positioned on the near side of intersections and point away from the intersection in their respective directions.
This is an important difference.
If a driver in Europe (right hand drive such as here in Germany) is waiting to turn left at a red light s/he will wait until the light turns green then (slowly) pull into the intersection and wait until oncoming traffic has cleared (or until it is safe) before turning left. It is important to understand that at the point a driver *enters* an intersection that *no* traffic light activity any longer visible to the driver, so s/he WILL eventually have the opportunity (and obligation so as not to block cross-traffic) to turn left, at the latest once the oncoming traffic is presented with a red light. Cars behind that driver are already presented with a red light and may not pass through it in order to enter the intersection.
This differences can be quite interesting, as well as dangerous to the uninformed. For example European tourists visiting the United States are highly likely to make the dangerous mistake of driving right up to a traffic light only to then realize that they are sitting in the middle the intersection. Another mistake that Europeans might make when first driving in America is to come to a screeching halt in the middle an intersection while turning left because they are not used being "presented" with a red light without having to stop.
Americans drivers first visiting Europe may have a tenancy to stop much further back from an intersection at a red light than is necessary, and American pedestrians are sometimes confused at first by the lack of visible traffic lights for cars, which I think might be one reason why Europeans (a least here in Germany) pay such close attention to crosswalk signals. As a pedestrian in Europe only crosswalk signal activity is visible whereas in America pedestrians have a tendency to pay more attention to what the car traffic lights are doing so as to know when it is safe to cross.
**Americans driving in right-handed Europe (not Ireland/UK) should also take care when turning right (This happened to me, but I was lucky enough to get out of a ticket.) that they are not turning into a cross-walk where a red light may be positioned pointing to the left *into* the the intersection. Yep, turning to the right into a traffic light clearly intended for the cross-traffic is considered driving through a red light!
To put it simply, in Europe knowledge of traffic light activity at an intersection is on a need-to-know basis only, whereas in America it's public knowledge.
A White House "prison look" is more than appropriate with the incarceration rate being what it is in the US.
Just ask the members of the South Dakota state legislator and they could tell you how CO2 is the gas of life! http://thinkprogress.org/polit...
cases in which the technology is used in public places or other locations at which the FBI deems there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
In other words; anytime they damn well feel like it. So where is the outrage?
What could possibly go wrong? Nothing. it's for our own health and safety. Don't you want to stay healthy?
Are these agencies going to be covered under HIPAA?
Nice one, since when does any law apply when national security is at stake?
I predict this will more or less put the private information of pretty much everyone into pretty much every government agency, and that this will be hacked and leaked 10 ways from Sunday.
It already is, so what's the big deal?
..the 4th amendment has never been extended. Advances in technology were finally found to be covered by it
I always cringe whenever I hear the word "to find" used like this as if they actually uncovered some previously unknown truth hidden within the Constitution. These actions were never "found" to be in compliance with the Constitution. Instead they were just declared to be after limited tenuous debate. Even a 9th grader can recognise this as a blatant violation of our basic rights, but hey, the Supreme Court "found" that it's ok, so there nothing left for us to do than just suck it up.
TSA employees and similar government workers might as well all be on welfare for all the good they are doing. Why not just give them the same money that they are being paid to carry out their jobs at the TSA but let them stay home. What's the difference between a dollar handed out as welfare for doing nothing or that same dollar being handed out to a TSA employee? The money ultimately comes from the same tax source.
Not to be too pedantic, but the by the "Fed" are you referring the Federal Government or the Federal Reserve? The "Fed" is the the Federal Reserve. I realize it's all cool and stuff to shorten long words, but sometimes doing so can completely change the meaning of what you are trying to say.
their entire economy revolves around selling things they can find on the ground.
We are so much better because our economy revolves around moving money between accounts.
In and of itself this incident is not all that remarkable, but it is an interesting indicator of just how paranoid our government has become.
It's nice to see Brussels actually making itself useful. Next they should work at banning mandatory TV licensing which is obnoxious and should not exist in the 21st century.
Do you have any idea of the massive uproar which would occur in the UK if a supermarket (like Tesco) was stupid enough to try that over here ?
Do you have any idea of the massive uproar which would occur in the US if the major TV networks tried to implement a TV licence?
It wasn't all that long ago when the only way people were able to "come together" was to actually meet face to face. Before the likes to Facebook and Myspace... the only way to have any contact with lost former acquaintances was to do a lot or research or travel "back home" to find them. With services such as Facebook what would have been long lost acquaintances now bombard our news feeds with useless information 24-7. Fragmentation may have been the norm in the past, and Facebook may be a fad today, but social networking is here to stay. And I am over 45 years old. Now get off my lawn.
I sense derision in your comment. If you are so fond of the BBC then YOU can give them money, but as for the rest of us we shouldn't be FORCED to pay for a license for the simple act of owning a television set. We no longer live in the 1950s. If the BBC is so worried that people will receive their signal without paying then they should encrypt the bloody thing and make it only available to subscribers.
Too many people equate "The Law" with morality and consider it a forgone conclusion that whatever "The Law" states must be adhered to, and if violated must be enforced at all costs. Unfortunately there exist just too many unjust, absurd, horrific, ridiculous, and outdated laws such as, Jim Crow, Apartheid, FATCA, the Patriot Act, FATCA, the Nuremberg Laws, .....compulsory TV licensing *even if you don't have a TV*.... Most people who are negatively affected by such laws are usually met with derision and marginalized and told to suck it up by the majority of society simply because "It's the law!". It's a shame that we all live in societies that have placed "the Law" above justice and common decency.
Imagine you're selling someone fertilizer. Now if that person is using that fertilizer to build a bomb, you should of course not be responsible. Also it's unreasonable that you should have to check what they do with this fertilizer. But if you check, find out they build bombs with it, and continue to sell them the fertilizer knowing that they use it for building bombs you are of course also responsible for the deaths those bombs cause.
A more accurate analogy would be this: Imagine that your company maintains an independent telephone directory service. A fertilizer company whose number happens to be listed in your directory (un)knowingly sells "illegal bomb-making materials" to "terrorists" who happened to your directory service to find the fertilizer company's number. After a bombing attack your telephone directory service company is then held liable because you didn't happen to scrutinise your publicly accessible database close enough to weed out any potential bad guys who might receive calls as a result of you having listed their telephone numbers.
This cannot be good.
I wonder what repercussions this may have regarding EU countries' compliance with FATCA?
Maybe you do not have a US pilot certificate but US ones do not have photographs. http://www.aopa.org/Advocacy/Regulatory-,-a-,-Certification-Policy/Regulatory-Brief-Photo-Pilot-Certificates.aspx "The terrorist acts in 2001 prompted passage of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA), enacted on Nov. 19, 2001, which called for the under secretary of Transportation to consider a requirement for a photo ID pilot certificate. In order to provide a simple, inexpensive, timely means to positively identify pilots, AOPA asked the FAA to change the rules to require pilots to carry a government-issued photo ID along with their pilot certificate. As a result, the FAA changed 14 CFR 61.3(a): Requirement for Certificates, Ratings, and Authorizations, which requires all flight crewmembers of an aircraft to carry a pilot certificate and government-issued photo identification."
Effectively we do have "national ID cards" even though we don't call them that. Our state issued driver licenses (or non-driver's ID) are linked to our federally issued social security numbers which serves the same purpose. Try getting a driver license or non-driver's ID without a social security number.
It used to be that every time news like this came out I would think that things couldn't get much worse, but recently I have come to the conclusion that things can and will continue to get a lot worse. I now wonder just how much worse will it get? What's going to be next and when will the madness stop?
How long might it be before "trusted hardware" renders even [semi]-trusted operating systems such as Linux untrustworthy? Is this even an issue?