Really? I lived in Denver in ~80-81, and don't think I ever saw any open carry. Ditto for the Springs in '67-68. Not that I could have affored an actual firearm during either of those periods.;)
Does CO have limitations similar to AZ, e.g. no carry in liquor stores? (Georgia is actually more sensible about that, prohibiting concealed carry on where alcohol is actually served, not sold for off-premises consumption.) I know, I could go to e.g. packing.org and look it up for myself.;)
Sorry, possibly a bad choice of words. How about "the bill, in the spirit in which it was conceived"? Nah, that doesn't do it either, given the 'spirit' in Congress. Awfully hard to pin down that language, actually.
And yes, I've been familiar with the american system of government for over 40 years. And in all that time, I've become increasingly convinced that it simply doesn't work. It doesn't matter a gnats fart in a windstorm what Congress is supposed. They have amply demonstrated that they cannot be counted on for anything, unless one is a multi-million dollar corporation or special interest group.
As for electing a suitable candidate, all I can say is ha. From as best I've been able to determine, the few good candidates I've seen over the years have either been swamped by, or joined, that great pork barrel culture.
What we NEED is to throw out every freaking law written in the past 200 years (except possibly the amendments) and start from scratch, this time actually paying attention to the constitution. What can happen in reality is something entirely different.
I think the important difference (besides possibly not being struck down by the Supreme Court;) is that it offers a compromise solution. By being able to approve the bill - as intended - and reject the graft, the President has the ability to put the onus back on Congress.
If it's a "must pass" bill (such as is typically used for the slimiest of these tricks) and the President says "sure, I'll pass it, but hold the side of pork", it is then up to Congress to 'justify' the pork. The same circumstances that make it difficult for the President to reject such bills now then gets turned back around on Congress. They might be willing to pull 'routine' bills with attached pork, but it would be hard to stall e.g. disaster relief just because their toys got taken away.
Turn your pc into a pvr right now and you are fine. Do the same after this flag goes into effect and it is illegal.
Not _quite_ true. You would still be allowed to build a PVR; however, the capture hardware would have to 'enforce' the broadcast flag, and refuse to capture anything that had it set.
Unfortunately, this is not always possible. Who is going to veto an emergency spending bill for e.g. Katrina? It has to be pretty egregious pork at that point to veto the bill outright and delay getting those funds into the hands of those who need them.
How about a compromise; the President gets to line-item veto anything he wants. Congress then has the option of allowing the amended bill to proceed, or to consider it a full veto, and 'withdraw' the bill.
This would put the onus back on Congress to account for the pork, but still leave effective control in their hands.
This was my letter to my congresscritters, for all the good it will do.
Although my direct concern is Congress once again allowing industry to set law (the so-called 'Broadcast Flag'), my issue goes beyond that item.
It is far past the time to make it unconstitutional to add unrelated items to bills. It's primary use is deceit, along with the plausible deniability of claiming it was 'snuck' in at the last minute. A secondary effect is pork, which, with the current National Debt, we hardly need.
I urge each of you to sponsor and support legislation towards this end.
And PLEASE stop letting special interest groups in this country virtually write their own laws. That is NOT what our founding fathers had in mind for this country. How about considering "we, the people" for a change???
Even at the time I got my first FL CCW permit (well over a decade ago) it was a Class III misdemeaner (sp?) to 'flash' ones weapon (accidently OR on purpose).
But, then why is that what the police do?
Actually, what the police do is "open" (non-concealed) carry. I guess the theory is people won't freak if they see a police officer with a gun. Given the way I look (usually scruffy geek), people probably WOULD freak if they saw I was carrying. CCW permits specificially require strict adherence to the 'concealed' portion of 'concealed carry, weapons'.
(Arizona is the only state I know of which still allows non-concealed carrying of a firearm, and even they have laws similar to CCW states - e.g. no carrying in liquor stores. Open carry IS allowed on private property [e.g. your home], which is why most shooting ranges sport openly armed employees. They simply can't go outside like that.)
One of the reasons I haven't gone ahead with getting a license. I'd definitely want to be well trained before I went ahead with arming myself, way beyond any required training to get a license.
I think that's a) admirable, and b) fairly rare. Especially since the 'training' in FLA for CCW is pretty weak. (Of course, that's better than GA, which doesn't require _any_ training, but hey....) I will say that taking some classes, particularly when I got my first CCW, was probably one of the best things I've ever done.
The training helped not only to get over the 'John Wayne' period of concealed carry, but was also a huge confidence booster. It's darn surprising just how fast one's heart can start beating even in a scenario with [multiple, moving] paper targets!
Anyway, this has been an interesting discussion. Something kind of rare on Slashdot...
Ain't that the truth.;)
Anyway, if you're around the FLL area, let me know and I can pass along some school recommendations. Otherwise, check with the local ranges. I don't remember any of the classes I took costing more than a couple hundred bucks; not bad for multiple lessons with an individual instructor on a private range. (Ammo not included.)
BBBBBBZZZZZZTTTTTTTT. Thanks for playing; would you like to try again?
*I* did not say that "ATTEMPTS TO IMPOSE STATE CONTROL" were the definition of facism. I simply quoted it from the self-same Wikipedia article that you originally used to stake out your posititon.
As I've said, I do not see any logical inconsistencies in my posts, and I'm willing to bet that my command of formal logic is at least equal to yours. Frankly, you remind me of a gentleman I used to know who once asked "if I say it louder, can I make it true". Or, more honestly, of too many people who believe that theory implicitly.
But clearly continuing this dicussion is a waste of my time, at least. You keep feeling 'safe', right up to the day the jackboots knock on your door.
It looks like they've either just changed it or are in the process of it, but at the beginning of 2005 the law was that you had to use "every reasonable means to avoid the danger, including retreat."
I'm not sure how that squares with, e.g. seeing someone being raped/assaulted, and using deadly force to prevent the confrontation, to be honest. If someone is raping my girlfriend (just by way of random example;), I'm damn well going to stop them, even if I can reasonably avoid the situation by retreating.
Well, having never taken such a course maybe I just have no clue what I'm talking about, but I would think that there are some cases where it's appropriate to threaten force without necessarily using it.
That shows you have never taken such a course, even without the lead-in.;) Even at the time I got my first FL CCW permit (well over a decade ago) it was a Class III misdemeaner (sp?) to 'flash' ones weapon (accidently OR on purpose). I'm pretty sure it was also illegal to do the verbal equivalent - but even if not, it's tactically inadvisable. It's sort of like cocking the shotgun to warn an intruder. Well, with 99% of intruders, they'll crap their pants and go running. The other 1% will shoot you, using the sound for aiming.
On the threatened by a knive issue, it was at least true in the past that anyone within ~21' of you holding a deadly weapon was subject to your using deadly force. Personally, I believe that to still be true, as I am more than willing to argue my inability to retreat safely within that distance. (I participated in some demonstrations which showed all too vividly how fast a person can cover that distance.)
My understanding is that in Florida you can't sue them, even if you're totally innocent, if the alarm goes off.
If that's true, it's different from when I was there. Guess the merchants have been busy rewriting state laws, too. Anyway, I've trained my g.f. to NOT stop, so that's rarely a problem.
Hopefully they won't find this slashdot post and know that it was premeditated.
Wouldn't bother me a bit. There is a difference between having a tactical plan and premeditation. There is ZERO purpose in being an armed citizen if you have not made the decision in your own mind that you will use deadly force when the situation requires it. I knew that from reading, but it was also one of the things that was stressed in training.
The odds that anyone would lay hands on me (in this state, at least) is very low; that there would be a big enough threat to justify pulling a weapon is even lower. However, that potential does exist, and refusing to recognize the possibility is also tactically unwise. "Always have a plan" is tremendously useful advice, if and when the fecal matter does hit the oscillating rotary blades.
Also on point is that you 'act as you have trained'. Although I have not trained to go around the country shooting Home Depot clerks, I HAVE trained to respond to both on-going and escalating threatening situations. (And you can bet that if I ever do shoot someone, that the folder will all the training documentation is going to be presented as evidence - by me.)
Frankly, I see nothing that needs rationalization. I have never argued that laws are NOT an attempt to impose state control (perhaps a review of my actual posts would prove informative?).
And if you can't see how the rate and severity of those laws (passed and attempted) has increased to beyond the rate of facism, well... It's that attitude that lets our government get away with it.
Do you think the people living under the 'facist' regime thought their government was facist? Not until it was too late to do anything about it, would be my guess.
To be honest, I'm kind of stumped as to how carrying a concealed firearm is going to help you protect yourself when you're not even allowed to take out that gun unless you're being attacked and are unable to run away.
Well, that's not _quite_ an accurate summation of the deadly force laws extant in Florida. One is permitted to use deadly force to defend life (but not property). Yes, retreat is the _first_ thing that a [good] tactical defense course will teach you. However, it is not required under the law, even in non castle-doctrine cases.
As for the 'theft detectors', I've adopted a policy in the last couple years to simply keep walking. I've yet to be challenged by store employees. Admittedly, this is mostly in major chains, and usually associated with specific items (which were legitimately purchased). Those chains, again, won't make more than a token effort to stop you, lest you sue them if you're truly innocent. From what I've observed, mostly the employees don't even blink when the alarm goes off.
My response in any event would be to a) keep walking, b) hit anyone who touched me and c) shoot anyone who looked at all threatening. As I am tall-but-skinny, I can always make the 98-# weakling case when it comes to a determination of whether or not -- in my mind -- I was in fear for my life, which is the current standard in such cases.
As for 'probable cause', most courts have interpreted that as somebody (or the camera) saw the act in progress, not as in 'the person looked suspicious'; effectively what I was saying.
I personally bridle every time I shop at e.g. Sams Club, as their requirement to check the receipt is perfectly legal; if you don't consent, they simply revoke your membership.
Damn, I hate following up on my own posts. Sorry, I missed the FL reference in your original message. I haven't lived there for almost a decade, and am not familiar with the current laws. Except to note that my GA CCW permit is honored there.;)
For instance, it's legal here for a security guard of a supermarket to detain someone they suspect of theft.
I'm not sure where "here" is, but in most states, it is necessary for a security guard / store employee / whatever to have _proof_ of theft before any detention takes place. Too many negative lawsuits have effectively forced most stores into comparable policies even in other places. And any such person who attempts to _physically_ detain me will be sorry, even if I am guilty. (In which case I'm probably not worried about a little assault case on top of things.)
Just as it is not necessary to let the guy at Best Buy check your receipt.
On Terry Stops, I can easily envision other circumstances, though admittedly they all likely fall under the same general cover. Leaving the so-called Patriot Act aside, anyway.
Obviously that is not true. If you are pulled over for a traffic stop, are you 'free to leave'? And have you ever been read your Miranda rights under those circumstances?
There are MANY legal ways to detain someone which do not require an arrest, per se.
Fingerprints act as a key to identity ONLY. DNA provides a huge amount of additional information, little of which is related (other than as a pattern match) to identity. And all of which has huge potential for abuse.
Not that OUR government has any history of abuse, or anything.
Normally I wouldn't respond to AC posters, but the sheer stupidity of your post forces me into it. Ultimately, there is little - or nothing - that a massive military organization uses which the civilian population does NOT use.
I repeat my original comment - this is NOT a military device, and exempting it from patent enforcement was likely done only because Lucent has high-ranking government contacts. Read "BULLSHIT".
I disagree, vehemently. Was England successful in imposing control on its new colonies?
There have been MANY attempts over the past couple hundred years to pass repressive laws. MOST of those have been successfully defeated. NONE of them have been in the post-9/11 era.
And frankly, the only thing I'm likely to get at all excited about is the government REPEALING laws; another thing which almost never happens, no matter how outdated or how stupid the law is.
Really? You can't tell the difference between a state-controlled life and what we have?
Man, you just don't get it (and you should; enough other people have pointed out points I chose to skip). I repeat, try READING the article. Notice how it does not say anything about HAVING a state-controlled life. It says typified by ATTEMPTS TO IMPOSE STATE CONTROL.
And if you can't see where that is happening (can you say Patriot Act, for example?), then there is clearly no point in trying to further your education. Hopefully the lurkers will give your posts the weight they deserve.
Sorry, unless/until you can answer how an optical cable coupler is a 'military device' - you know, the actual top posted article? - correcting the deficiencies in those statements is clearly counterproductive.
I'll agree with the original poster in so far as it is NOT eminent domain. As others have pointed out, eminent domain requires that the affected parties be compensated. Ok, so they're mostly ripped off in that compensation. But they still get it....
Personally, I've never seen a U-joint that looked like two halves of a tennis ball; I suspect the original poster has never seen one at all.
A device to couple optical cables is 'a military device'? Yeah, under that logic, so is my aunt martha. It's only a 'military device' because the government wants to be able to keep 'secretly' tapping the underwater optical lines.
I prefer Fark, which likewise tends to pre-date/. The lack of threaded comments is a bore, but the wit and humor tends to be higher quality, and there aren't nearly as many wannabes.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? I lived in Denver in ~80-81, and don't think I ever saw any open carry. Ditto for the Springs in '67-68. Not that I could have affored an actual firearm during either of those periods. ;)
;)
Does CO have limitations similar to AZ, e.g. no carry in liquor stores? (Georgia is actually more sensible about that, prohibiting concealed carry on where alcohol is actually served, not sold for off-premises consumption.) I know, I could go to e.g. packing.org and look it up for myself.
Sorry, possibly a bad choice of words. How about "the bill, in the spirit in which it was conceived"? Nah, that doesn't do it either, given the 'spirit' in Congress. Awfully hard to pin down that language, actually.
And yes, I've been familiar with the american system of government for over 40 years. And in all that time, I've become increasingly convinced that it simply doesn't work. It doesn't matter a gnats fart in a windstorm what Congress is supposed. They have amply demonstrated that they cannot be counted on for anything, unless one is a multi-million dollar corporation or special interest group.
As for electing a suitable candidate, all I can say is ha. From as best I've been able to determine, the few good candidates I've seen over the years have either been swamped by, or joined, that great pork barrel culture.
What we NEED is to throw out every freaking law written in the past 200 years (except possibly the amendments) and start from scratch, this time actually paying attention to the constitution. What can happen in reality is something entirely different.
I think the important difference (besides possibly not being struck down by the Supreme Court ;) is that it offers a compromise solution. By being able to approve the bill - as intended - and reject the graft, the President has the ability to put the onus back on Congress.
If it's a "must pass" bill (such as is typically used for the slimiest of these tricks) and the President says "sure, I'll pass it, but hold the side of pork", it is then up to Congress to 'justify' the pork. The same circumstances that make it difficult for the President to reject such bills now then gets turned back around on Congress. They might be willing to pull 'routine' bills with attached pork, but it would be hard to stall e.g. disaster relief just because their toys got taken away.
Whadya trying to do, screw up the whole system?
Yes!
Turn your pc into a pvr right now and you are fine. Do the same after this flag goes into effect and it is illegal.
Not _quite_ true. You would still be allowed to build a PVR; however, the capture hardware would have to 'enforce' the broadcast flag, and refuse to capture anything that had it set.
Unfortunately, this is not always possible. Who is going to veto an emergency spending bill for e.g. Katrina? It has to be pretty egregious pork at that point to veto the bill outright and delay getting those funds into the hands of those who need them.
How about a compromise; the President gets to line-item veto anything he wants. Congress then has the option of allowing the amended bill to proceed, or to consider it a full veto, and 'withdraw' the bill.
This would put the onus back on Congress to account for the pork, but still leave effective control in their hands.
This was my letter to my congresscritters, for all the good it will do.
Although my direct concern is Congress once again allowing industry to set law (the so-called 'Broadcast Flag'), my issue goes beyond that item.
It is far past the time to make it unconstitutional to add unrelated items to bills. It's primary use is deceit, along with the plausible deniability of claiming it was 'snuck' in at the last minute. A secondary effect is pork, which, with the current National Debt, we hardly need.
I urge each of you to sponsor and support legislation towards this end.
And PLEASE stop letting special interest groups in this country virtually write their own laws. That is NOT what our founding fathers had in mind for this country. How about considering "we, the people" for a change???
Even at the time I got my first FL CCW permit (well over a decade ago) it was a Class III misdemeaner (sp?) to 'flash' ones weapon (accidently OR on purpose).
;)
But, then why is that what the police do?
Actually, what the police do is "open" (non-concealed) carry. I guess the theory is people won't freak if they see a police officer with a gun. Given the way I look (usually scruffy geek), people probably WOULD freak if they saw I was carrying. CCW permits specificially require strict adherence to the 'concealed' portion of 'concealed carry, weapons'.
(Arizona is the only state I know of which still allows non-concealed carrying of a firearm, and even they have laws similar to CCW states - e.g. no carrying in liquor stores. Open carry IS allowed on private property [e.g. your home], which is why most shooting ranges sport openly armed employees. They simply can't go outside like that.)
One of the reasons I haven't gone ahead with getting a license. I'd definitely want to be well trained before I went ahead with arming myself, way beyond any required training to get a license.
I think that's a) admirable, and b) fairly rare. Especially since the 'training' in FLA for CCW is pretty weak. (Of course, that's better than GA, which doesn't require _any_ training, but hey....) I will say that taking some classes, particularly when I got my first CCW, was probably one of the best things I've ever done.
The training helped not only to get over the 'John Wayne' period of concealed carry, but was also a huge confidence booster. It's darn surprising just how fast one's heart can start beating even in a scenario with [multiple, moving] paper targets!
Anyway, this has been an interesting discussion. Something kind of rare on Slashdot...
Ain't that the truth.
Anyway, if you're around the FLL area, let me know and I can pass along some school recommendations. Otherwise, check with the local ranges. I don't remember any of the classes I took costing more than a couple hundred bucks; not bad for multiple lessons with an individual instructor on a private range. (Ammo not included.)
BBBBBBZZZZZZTTTTTTTT. Thanks for playing; would you like to try again?
*I* did not say that "ATTEMPTS TO IMPOSE STATE CONTROL" were the definition of facism. I simply quoted it from the self-same Wikipedia article that you originally used to stake out your posititon.
As I've said, I do not see any logical inconsistencies in my posts, and I'm willing to bet that my command of formal logic is at least equal to yours. Frankly, you remind me of a gentleman I used to know who once asked "if I say it louder, can I make it true". Or, more honestly, of too many people who believe that theory implicitly.
But clearly continuing this dicussion is a waste of my time, at least. You keep feeling 'safe', right up to the day the jackboots knock on your door.
It looks like they've either just changed it or are in the process of it, but at the beginning of 2005 the law was that you had to use "every reasonable means to avoid the danger, including retreat."
;), I'm damn well going to stop them, even if I can reasonably avoid the situation by retreating.
;) Even at the time I got my first FL CCW permit (well over a decade ago) it was a Class III misdemeaner (sp?) to 'flash' ones weapon (accidently OR on purpose). I'm pretty sure it was also illegal to do the verbal equivalent - but even if not, it's tactically inadvisable. It's sort of like cocking the shotgun to warn an intruder. Well, with 99% of intruders, they'll crap their pants and go running. The other 1% will shoot you, using the sound for aiming.
I'm not sure how that squares with, e.g. seeing someone being raped/assaulted, and using deadly force to prevent the confrontation, to be honest. If someone is raping my girlfriend (just by way of random example
Well, having never taken such a course maybe I just have no clue what I'm talking about, but I would think that there are some cases where it's appropriate to threaten force without necessarily using it.
That shows you have never taken such a course, even without the lead-in.
On the threatened by a knive issue, it was at least true in the past that anyone within ~21' of you holding a deadly weapon was subject to your using deadly force. Personally, I believe that to still be true, as I am more than willing to argue my inability to retreat safely within that distance. (I participated in some demonstrations which showed all too vividly how fast a person can cover that distance.)
My understanding is that in Florida you can't sue them, even if you're totally innocent, if the alarm goes off.
If that's true, it's different from when I was there. Guess the merchants have been busy rewriting state laws, too. Anyway, I've trained my g.f. to NOT stop, so that's rarely a problem.
Hopefully they won't find this slashdot post and know that it was premeditated.
Wouldn't bother me a bit. There is a difference between having a tactical plan and premeditation. There is ZERO purpose in being an armed citizen if you have not made the decision in your own mind that you will use deadly force when the situation requires it. I knew that from reading, but it was also one of the things that was stressed in training.
The odds that anyone would lay hands on me (in this state, at least) is very low; that there would be a big enough threat to justify pulling a weapon is even lower. However, that potential does exist, and refusing to recognize the possibility is also tactically unwise. "Always have a plan" is tremendously useful advice, if and when the fecal matter does hit the oscillating rotary blades.
Also on point is that you 'act as you have trained'. Although I have not trained to go around the country shooting Home Depot clerks, I HAVE trained to respond to both on-going and escalating threatening situations. (And you can bet that if I ever do shoot someone, that the folder will all the training documentation is going to be presented as evidence - by me.)
Frankly, I see nothing that needs rationalization. I have never argued that laws are NOT an attempt to impose state control (perhaps a review of my actual posts would prove informative?).
And if you can't see how the rate and severity of those laws (passed and attempted) has increased to beyond the rate of facism, well... It's that attitude that lets our government get away with it.
Do you think the people living under the 'facist' regime thought their government was facist? Not until it was too late to do anything about it, would be my guess.
To be honest, I'm kind of stumped as to how carrying a concealed firearm is going to help you protect yourself when you're not even allowed to take out that gun unless you're being attacked and are unable to run away.
Well, that's not _quite_ an accurate summation of the deadly force laws extant in Florida. One is permitted to use deadly force to defend life (but not property). Yes, retreat is the _first_ thing that a [good] tactical defense course will teach you. However, it is not required under the law, even in non castle-doctrine cases.
As for the 'theft detectors', I've adopted a policy in the last couple years to simply keep walking. I've yet to be challenged by store employees. Admittedly, this is mostly in major chains, and usually associated with specific items (which were legitimately purchased). Those chains, again, won't make more than a token effort to stop you, lest you sue them if you're truly innocent. From what I've observed, mostly the employees don't even blink when the alarm goes off.
My response in any event would be to a) keep walking, b) hit anyone who touched me and c) shoot anyone who looked at all threatening. As I am tall-but-skinny, I can always make the 98-# weakling case when it comes to a determination of whether or not -- in my mind -- I was in fear for my life, which is the current standard in such cases.
I covered the FL thing in my 2nd post; sorry.
As for 'probable cause', most courts have interpreted that as somebody (or the camera) saw the act in progress, not as in 'the person looked suspicious'; effectively what I was saying.
I personally bridle every time I shop at e.g. Sams Club, as their requirement to check the receipt is perfectly legal; if you don't consent, they simply revoke your membership.
Damn, I hate following up on my own posts. Sorry, I missed the FL reference in your original message. I haven't lived there for almost a decade, and am not familiar with the current laws. Except to note that my GA CCW permit is honored there. ;)
For instance, it's legal here for a security guard of a supermarket to detain someone they suspect of theft.
I'm not sure where "here" is, but in most states, it is necessary for a security guard / store employee / whatever to have _proof_ of theft before any detention takes place. Too many negative lawsuits have effectively forced most stores into comparable policies even in other places. And any such person who attempts to _physically_ detain me will be sorry, even if I am guilty. (In which case I'm probably not worried about a little assault case on top of things.)
Just as it is not necessary to let the guy at Best Buy check your receipt.
On Terry Stops, I can easily envision other circumstances, though admittedly they all likely fall under the same general cover. Leaving the so-called Patriot Act aside, anyway.
Obviously that is not true. If you are pulled over for a traffic stop, are you 'free to leave'? And have you ever been read your Miranda rights under those circumstances?
There are MANY legal ways to detain someone which do not require an arrest, per se.
Fingerprints act as a key to identity ONLY. DNA provides a huge amount of additional information, little of which is related (other than as a pattern match) to identity. And all of which has huge potential for abuse.
Not that OUR government has any history of abuse, or anything.
Normally I wouldn't respond to AC posters, but the sheer stupidity of your post forces me into it. Ultimately, there is little - or nothing - that a massive military organization uses which the civilian population does NOT use.
I repeat my original comment - this is NOT a military device, and exempting it from patent enforcement was likely done only because Lucent has high-ranking government contacts. Read "BULLSHIT".
I disagree, vehemently. Was England successful in imposing control on its new colonies?
There have been MANY attempts over the past couple hundred years to pass repressive laws. MOST of those have been successfully defeated. NONE of them have been in the post-9/11 era.
And frankly, the only thing I'm likely to get at all excited about is the government REPEALING laws; another thing which almost never happens, no matter how outdated or how stupid the law is.
True - but that was Lucent. Eminent domain compensation originates with the government, not a sub-contractor.
Really? You can't tell the difference between a state-controlled life and what we have?
Man, you just don't get it (and you should; enough other people have pointed out points I chose to skip). I repeat, try READING the article. Notice how it does not say anything about HAVING a state-controlled life. It says typified by ATTEMPTS TO IMPOSE STATE CONTROL.
And if you can't see where that is happening (can you say Patriot Act, for example?), then there is clearly no point in trying to further your education. Hopefully the lurkers will give your posts the weight they deserve.
Sorry, unless/until you can answer how an optical cable coupler is a 'military device' - you know, the actual top posted article? - correcting the deficiencies in those statements is clearly counterproductive.
I'll agree with the original poster in so far as it is NOT eminent domain. As others have pointed out, eminent domain requires that the affected parties be compensated. Ok, so they're mostly ripped off in that compensation. But they still get it....
Personally, I've never seen a U-joint that looked like two halves of a tennis ball; I suspect the original poster has never seen one at all.
A device to couple optical cables is 'a military device'? Yeah, under that logic, so is my aunt martha. It's only a 'military device' because the government wants to be able to keep 'secretly' tapping the underwater optical lines.
I prefer Fark, which likewise tends to pre-date /. The lack of threaded comments is a bore, but the wit and humor tends to be higher quality, and there aren't nearly as many wannabes.