Doing 90mph on a 70mph road is probably fairly safe if there is no other traffic, the road is dry and visibility good, but that's a rare state.
Have you ever driven across country in the USA? Seriously, this is anything but "a rare state".
Most of this country, despite what many believe, is wide open space with low population and even less traffic. It's not difficult to do 120 mph for several hours without ever seeing another car. (I've done it though closer to 105 mph--I've only gone 120 once and it scared the crap out of me.) Populous areas are actually quite spread out until you get to the coastal states. If you avoid those and shoot straight across the middle of the country, it's very easy to "hit the open road" and avoid most traffic issues.
I'm not saying what this guy did is smart, but it's far from automatically being as reckless as most of the comments suggest. Yes, generally speaking it was a stupid thing to do for a "record" that really isn't all that hard (it certainly didn't require all the ridiculous gadgets he added to his car) to attain. Stupid is a relative term though, and can be easily moderated to be far less stupid or even more stupid. I'd dare say he did make some effort to minimize the stupidity of his actions, if for no other reason than making the task easier by avoiding traffic, though I don't know that for sure.
I'll say his first bad decision was to make this trip in the first place. I've driven 750 miles at an average speed of 85 miles per hour, and done it fairly regularly over the last ten years, at least once a year. I generally start at about 2 am and I'm finished about 9.5-10 hours later give or take restroom breaks. It's stupid, but it's the best way for me to get where I'm going in the time I need to be there. It's a bad decision, and I've been lucky, but I've hedged my bets by traveling when roads are least crowded, and traveling on (mostly) well maintained roads. For a couple years there was a 150 mile stretch that had construction on it where traffic generally slowed to about 65-70, but for at least half the trip the average speed of traffic (it's a major East-West trucking route) is around 80 mph.
This guy may have done something similar, minimizing his time with heavy traffic by starting late at night and ending early morning or something like that, but I somehow doubt it. My decision to travel the way I have is stupid, and his is just as bad.
Exactly. This is a non-story. The guy didn't do anything special except draw attention to his racing team by making a big hype out of a ridiculously easy "record" to break.
I've routinely driven between 90 and 100 miles per hour from Maryland to Tennessee without ever being bothered by cops. Of course I don't drive an M3 with racing stickers all over it, but 2795 miles in 32 hours is only an average of 87 miles per hour. That's not hard to accomplish unless you plan on ignoring interstate highways.
The biggest detriment he has is his car. He's a moving "racing" billboard for cops to target. This would be a lot easier if he drove a standard looking car. Of course it wouldn't really "look cool" either.
While I think this is pretty cool, the technical specs from your link say the thing is 12 inches long, 4 inches high, and 16 inches wide. I don't think anyone is going to be convinced that it's a real dragonfly.
That said, I've already mentioned elsewhere that I've seen model airplanes as small as a person's hand, made by hobbyists. Creating a "fixed wing" aircraft that moves fast enough and is small enough for people to think they saw a moth or dragonfly (whose wings you don't really see clearly during flight anyway) wouldn't be a particularly hard task with a large budget.
Yes making all those things would be difficult, but making something that is essentially a small model airplane that looks like an insect is far simpler. People see what they expect to see. If something is vaguely shaped like a moth or a dragonfly and about the right size, people will automatically "see" a moth or a dragonfly unless they've never seen one before, in which case, they'll investigate it more closely.
I've seen people make some "micro" model planes that fit in the palm of their hands, and these were just hobbyists willing to spend a few grand. Throw a couple hundred grand at them, and they'd be able to do something much smaller.
There are plenty of ways to power something of this size for longer than a few minutes of flight. A couple of watch batteries in series could easily power it for longer than that, and wouldn't even take up much space. That assumes you're not considering bleeding edge power sources or things like photodiodes (which produce on the order of 100 milliamps of current at a couple of volts) which convert light directly into electricity.
The larger problem is the payload. RF technology is small these days, but it would create a security risk, unless you're very close to the package, in which case, you're likely close enough to hear conversation anyway.
The biggest reason to believe this is completely false is that there are far better solutions that don't require you to be that close to your target, have plenty of flight time, and are far less likely to be detected. They are also small enough to be man-packable and launched by a single person fairly easily with a decent range on their datalinks.
More to the point, though, do we even want to dominate this particular race? Getting to the moon [again] is a big deal, but is it worth the effort? Unless we're going to develop a lunar base, what would be the point of racing to the moon again? We've already proven we could do it with technology from 40 years ago, why would doing it again really prove anything?
Certainly it would generate some new technologies and possibly even support for the space program, but our current space program is so wrapped up in its own importance that I doubt that would happen.
"Space-worthy" equipment is ridiculously expensive these days and NASA won't send anything up that isn't hardened to ridiculous standards. People would focus too much on the failures and the cost to recognize any true benefits, and thus, there would be no real benefit because the program simply wouldn't get off the ground.
No, you weren't. I was going to ask why everyone is so excited about the possibility of Jackson filming The Hobbit. Personally I think his rendition of the stories missed an awful lot of what I thought was important, not the least of which was real character development. I slept through the second and third installments. The first was an excellent start, but he failed miserably by focusing on the battles and not the characters, in my opinion.
That's most likely what they're going to have anyway. But they'll also have several minutes of video before they see that happen. The builder even says they expect the wings will shear off during flight, but hopes they won't.
This is going to be a very messy project, that hopefully nobody who isn't involved will be anywhere close to when it all comes crashing down.
I might also suggest hopping on a boat and going out a few miles from the coast. A few years ago, I kayaked out about 2 miles to a small island off the coast of Maine with a couple friends. We were the only people on the island that night (occupancy limited to 6 I think due to size) and we could see an unbelievable number of stars, satellites, planets, you name it.
This is a joke, right? All products have defects, why would this be limited to LCD/TFT displays? I can understand that there may be a higher incidence within these types of displays, but there's no reason to think it's not a valid issue that is limiting the current size of these televisions.
Or you could say that lawyers make language specific and attempt to make it less ambiguous. It's all a matter of perspective, really.
I'm not a fan of legal abuses or lawyers who try to weedle a situation trying to get the bad guy off on some technicality of how something was worded, but let's face it, sometimes that's exactly what's needed. Sometimes it's the bad guys who are getting hung by the same technicalities of language. Consider the RIAA's attempts to prosecute people for "offering up" songs for download, which technically isn't doing anything wrong. Without being specific about what "offering up" means, we'd have no real way to defend against the RIAA, right?
Everything can be used for "good" or "bad" deeds, but what is "good" and what is "bad" are strictly a matter of perspective.
You're aware that the FBI doesn't have any jurisdiction in military spying right? What does DoD have to do with FBI priorities?
As for "airport security" do you really think things are any more secure now than they were 10 years ago? Were they ever particularly "insecure" before?
I think you're being a little pedantic, and you'll find the GP meant foods like boxed macaroni and cheese, frozen pizzas and the like. These are traditionally very high in sodium content, as well as several other "not so healthy in high doses" things, like fats. Your body needs fats, but not the amount of fat you get from a Big Mac and Fries. These foods also don't taste as good to most people, but they offer a convenience factor that people are willing to tolerate a slightly less appetizing flavor to get.
Pasteurized milk is debatable in its health benefits: http://www.mercola.com/article/milk/no_milk.htm I don't know if this guy is one of those extreme types, but the information he provides about milk is accurate. Pasteurization of milk in Europe is also a fairly recent trend, and it still isn't done in many other parts of the world.
To the GP, if you think you need >$100K per year US to be in the "Fuck you" money stage, you must really waste a lot of money. Seriously, if my investments were earning me $60k a year in interest, I'd never work again. At least not work for someone else.
I guess it's all a matter of lifestyle though. I can travel pretty easily on $60k a year, and do most of what I want to do without trying to save up for much. No debt, except a house and another 9 months on a car payment, and a salary well above that is allowing me to reach that elusive "retirement" much sooner than I had once thought possible. In another 3-4 years it will be time for another career change. Not because I need to but because I want to...that's the best part. I'm 35 now, so by the time I'm 40 I should be in a new career, actually making more than I make now (which is more than enough) and with a substantial chunk in retirement accounts so that I will hopefully really retire at 50. But if for one second I felt like I was not enjoying my work, I'd cut it all back and push retirement out to a more "reasonable" age.
Not for most of the population, and definitely not if you have a family. Most companies that provide any health benefits provide minimal coverage for employees and no coverage for dependents without out-of-pocket expense for the employee. I know a lot of friends who don't get any coverage at all without paying for it (in professional IT positions). It's subsidized by the employer, but it's not paid for completely.
I'm going to have to call BS on some of your numbers. I can believe ~$700/mo for food, but if you're not eating out there's just no way you're paying $1700 per month in food costs unless you have a family of 10 or several children in diapers (in which case calling the costs food is a slight misnomer). The last time I went to Europe, I was there for 3 weeks and spent $1000 eating out for every meal (for 2 adults and a 12 year old.) That was in Paris and Madrid, and we didn't "cheap out" for food, either. We didn't do expensive, but we didn't deliberately look for cheap food.
Child care costs where I live in the US (near DC) are between $1300 and $2000 per month, per child, so those numbers seem either really cheap or reasonable, depending upon number of children.
Again, $1700 per month is pretty common (here) for a 2 bedroom apartment. If you want a house, it's a little higher or you're further from work.
My guess is you're either in a very expensive city of Europe, or you're completely out of touch with how cheap things really are. Granted, I live in one of the more expensive areas of the US, but at most housing and child care costs are double the "average" and food is more or less the same price across the country, certainly within a 10 or 15% range.
Consider the benefits you get that we don't, like 4-6 weeks of vacation compared to the average 2 weeks for US workers. Also consider the difference between social health care systems and private systems like here in the US.
On top of that, just look at our (US) society. We're consumer whores and we demand more for our time because somehow we feel that's valid. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that's how our society works. "More for me" is always the "American way" for better or worse. Right now it looks worse, but there are periods where it definitely looks better.
I'm paid just over 2 times the 2005 national average (for white collar jobs--just under 3 times for blue collar), which is high even for the DC area for an electrical engineer. I feel I'm actually over-compensated (I also get 4 weeks of vacation plus 12 holidays), but I recently bought a house that makes me feel like I'm just barely making ends meet. Yes I paid a lot for my house, and I don't need what I have. I tripled my monthly cost by moving out of my previous place and upgrading. My ex is living in Madrid, Spain with her new husband who makes somewhere around your 56000 Euro, as far as I can tell. He somehow paid the same base price for their 3 bedroom condo (compared to my 4 bedroom/13 acre house) as I paid for my house but has a monthly payment about 1/2 of mine. I'm not sure how, but he said basically it had to do with how the government supports the housing market there. I don't know if it's true, but that could also be a factor.
Cost of living isn't really that huge in most of the United States. Some areas, San Francisco, DC, LA, NYC, and other similar cities are expensive but most of the country is fairly cheap. I think the biggest difference is we just buy more crap and somehow the government thinks that's a good thing.
Apple has never tried to "price for exclusivity". It's just not what they're in business to do. The market for "being different" but they are the exact opposite of "different" in the media player market and hope to achieve the same in the CE market.
People do buy things to show off. They do buy them to be "different" and they do buy things to be just like everyone else. The goal of being a "different" sheep is exactly the market Apple is shooting to hit with any of their products. That's the point of the "switch" campaign.
Most of us know that any first gen product is likely to have bugs and flaws that users will find and manufacturers will fix. That's why the bell curve for product sales always has early adopters at the fringe (right), while most people are in the bell, and late-comers are in the fringe (left).
Apple is no different than any other company in their pricing schemes. Early adopters always pay more, and they expect to, for whatever their reasons. Woz has no reason to be bitching.
Depends mostly on how you stand up for your rights, not the fact that you do. The guy explained in his own blog that he was deliberately ignoring the people and didn't offer any explanation to the store employees or the cop about why he didn't acquiesce to the requests that he show his receipt.
If he had just said, "look, you have no authority to do this and I am not obligated to show you the receipt" then I doubt there would have been a problem. But he was deliberately being confrontational by not explaining his situation. When the cop arrived, he also did not offer "anything but my name" and was again, deliberately being confrontational.
I'm not saying the guy did a bad thing by standing up for himself. Quite the opposite, I like to do it the same way, but I'm more polite about it and it seems to work wonders. I don't get hassled, and I certainly don't get arrested, but I also don't give up my rights either.
Slashdot Mirror
Doing 90mph on a 70mph road is probably fairly safe if there is no other traffic, the road is dry and visibility good, but that's a rare state.
Have you ever driven across country in the USA? Seriously, this is anything but "a rare state".
Most of this country, despite what many believe, is wide open space with low population and even less traffic. It's not difficult to do 120 mph for several hours without ever seeing another car. (I've done it though closer to 105 mph--I've only gone 120 once and it scared the crap out of me.) Populous areas are actually quite spread out until you get to the coastal states. If you avoid those and shoot straight across the middle of the country, it's very easy to "hit the open road" and avoid most traffic issues.
I'm not saying what this guy did is smart, but it's far from automatically being as reckless as most of the comments suggest. Yes, generally speaking it was a stupid thing to do for a "record" that really isn't all that hard (it certainly didn't require all the ridiculous gadgets he added to his car) to attain. Stupid is a relative term though, and can be easily moderated to be far less stupid or even more stupid. I'd dare say he did make some effort to minimize the stupidity of his actions, if for no other reason than making the task easier by avoiding traffic, though I don't know that for sure.
Speed doesn't kill. Bad decisions do.
I'll say his first bad decision was to make this trip in the first place. I've driven 750 miles at an average speed of 85 miles per hour, and done it fairly regularly over the last ten years, at least once a year. I generally start at about 2 am and I'm finished about 9.5-10 hours later give or take restroom breaks. It's stupid, but it's the best way for me to get where I'm going in the time I need to be there. It's a bad decision, and I've been lucky, but I've hedged my bets by traveling when roads are least crowded, and traveling on (mostly) well maintained roads. For a couple years there was a 150 mile stretch that had construction on it where traffic generally slowed to about 65-70, but for at least half the trip the average speed of traffic (it's a major East-West trucking route) is around 80 mph.
This guy may have done something similar, minimizing his time with heavy traffic by starting late at night and ending early morning or something like that, but I somehow doubt it. My decision to travel the way I have is stupid, and his is just as bad.
Exactly. This is a non-story. The guy didn't do anything special except draw attention to his racing team by making a big hype out of a ridiculously easy "record" to break.
I've routinely driven between 90 and 100 miles per hour from Maryland to Tennessee without ever being bothered by cops. Of course I don't drive an M3 with racing stickers all over it, but 2795 miles in 32 hours is only an average of 87 miles per hour. That's not hard to accomplish unless you plan on ignoring interstate highways.
The biggest detriment he has is his car. He's a moving "racing" billboard for cops to target. This would be a lot easier if he drove a standard looking car. Of course it wouldn't really "look cool" either.
That's why my tinfoil hat is made of lead. You should see the size of my neck.
While I think this is pretty cool, the technical specs from your link say the thing is 12 inches long, 4 inches high, and 16 inches wide. I don't think anyone is going to be convinced that it's a real dragonfly.
That said, I've already mentioned elsewhere that I've seen model airplanes as small as a person's hand, made by hobbyists. Creating a "fixed wing" aircraft that moves fast enough and is small enough for people to think they saw a moth or dragonfly (whose wings you don't really see clearly during flight anyway) wouldn't be a particularly hard task with a large budget.
Yes making all those things would be difficult, but making something that is essentially a small model airplane that looks like an insect is far simpler. People see what they expect to see. If something is vaguely shaped like a moth or a dragonfly and about the right size, people will automatically "see" a moth or a dragonfly unless they've never seen one before, in which case, they'll investigate it more closely.
I've seen people make some "micro" model planes that fit in the palm of their hands, and these were just hobbyists willing to spend a few grand. Throw a couple hundred grand at them, and they'd be able to do something much smaller.
There are plenty of ways to power something of this size for longer than a few minutes of flight. A couple of watch batteries in series could easily power it for longer than that, and wouldn't even take up much space. That assumes you're not considering bleeding edge power sources or things like photodiodes (which produce on the order of 100 milliamps of current at a couple of volts) which convert light directly into electricity.
The larger problem is the payload. RF technology is small these days, but it would create a security risk, unless you're very close to the package, in which case, you're likely close enough to hear conversation anyway.
The biggest reason to believe this is completely false is that there are far better solutions that don't require you to be that close to your target, have plenty of flight time, and are far less likely to be detected. They are also small enough to be man-packable and launched by a single person fairly easily with a decent range on their datalinks.
More to the point, though, do we even want to dominate this particular race? Getting to the moon [again] is a big deal, but is it worth the effort? Unless we're going to develop a lunar base, what would be the point of racing to the moon again? We've already proven we could do it with technology from 40 years ago, why would doing it again really prove anything?
Certainly it would generate some new technologies and possibly even support for the space program, but our current space program is so wrapped up in its own importance that I doubt that would happen.
"Space-worthy" equipment is ridiculously expensive these days and NASA won't send anything up that isn't hardened to ridiculous standards. People would focus too much on the failures and the cost to recognize any true benefits, and thus, there would be no real benefit because the program simply wouldn't get off the ground.
No, you weren't. I was going to ask why everyone is so excited about the possibility of Jackson filming The Hobbit. Personally I think his rendition of the stories missed an awful lot of what I thought was important, not the least of which was real character development. I slept through the second and third installments. The first was an excellent start, but he failed miserably by focusing on the battles and not the characters, in my opinion.
That's most likely what they're going to have anyway. But they'll also have several minutes of video before they see that happen. The builder even says they expect the wings will shear off during flight, but hopes they won't.
This is going to be a very messy project, that hopefully nobody who isn't involved will be anywhere close to when it all comes crashing down.
Arches is still an excellent choice.
I might also suggest hopping on a boat and going out a few miles from the coast. A few years ago, I kayaked out about 2 miles to a small island off the coast of Maine with a couple friends. We were the only people on the island that night (occupancy limited to 6 I think due to size) and we could see an unbelievable number of stars, satellites, planets, you name it.
This is a joke, right? All products have defects, why would this be limited to LCD/TFT displays? I can understand that there may be a higher incidence within these types of displays, but there's no reason to think it's not a valid issue that is limiting the current size of these televisions.
Excellent point. I think it's far better to fight the crappy laws than to get around them on a technicality.
Or you could say that lawyers make language specific and attempt to make it less ambiguous. It's all a matter of perspective, really.
I'm not a fan of legal abuses or lawyers who try to weedle a situation trying to get the bad guy off on some technicality of how something was worded, but let's face it, sometimes that's exactly what's needed. Sometimes it's the bad guys who are getting hung by the same technicalities of language. Consider the RIAA's attempts to prosecute people for "offering up" songs for download, which technically isn't doing anything wrong. Without being specific about what "offering up" means, we'd have no real way to defend against the RIAA, right?
Everything can be used for "good" or "bad" deeds, but what is "good" and what is "bad" are strictly a matter of perspective.
You're aware that the FBI doesn't have any jurisdiction in military spying right? What does DoD have to do with FBI priorities?
As for "airport security" do you really think things are any more secure now than they were 10 years ago? Were they ever particularly "insecure" before?
How in the hell is first post redundant? Seriously, mods, that's just ridiculous!
I think you're being a little pedantic, and you'll find the GP meant foods like boxed macaroni and cheese, frozen pizzas and the like. These are traditionally very high in sodium content, as well as several other "not so healthy in high doses" things, like fats. Your body needs fats, but not the amount of fat you get from a Big Mac and Fries. These foods also don't taste as good to most people, but they offer a convenience factor that people are willing to tolerate a slightly less appetizing flavor to get.
Pasteurized milk is debatable in its health benefits: http://www.mercola.com/article/milk/no_milk.htm
I don't know if this guy is one of those extreme types, but the information he provides about milk is accurate. Pasteurization of milk in Europe is also a fairly recent trend, and it still isn't done in many other parts of the world.
Someone please mod this up.
To the GP, if you think you need >$100K per year US to be in the "Fuck you" money stage, you must really waste a lot of money. Seriously, if my investments were earning me $60k a year in interest, I'd never work again. At least not work for someone else.
I guess it's all a matter of lifestyle though. I can travel pretty easily on $60k a year, and do most of what I want to do without trying to save up for much. No debt, except a house and another 9 months on a car payment, and a salary well above that is allowing me to reach that elusive "retirement" much sooner than I had once thought possible. In another 3-4 years it will be time for another career change. Not because I need to but because I want to...that's the best part. I'm 35 now, so by the time I'm 40 I should be in a new career, actually making more than I make now (which is more than enough) and with a substantial chunk in retirement accounts so that I will hopefully really retire at 50. But if for one second I felt like I was not enjoying my work, I'd cut it all back and push retirement out to a more "reasonable" age.
Not for most of the population, and definitely not if you have a family. Most companies that provide any health benefits provide minimal coverage for employees and no coverage for dependents without out-of-pocket expense for the employee. I know a lot of friends who don't get any coverage at all without paying for it (in professional IT positions). It's subsidized by the employer, but it's not paid for completely.
I'm going to have to call BS on some of your numbers. I can believe ~$700/mo for food, but if you're not eating out there's just no way you're paying $1700 per month in food costs unless you have a family of 10 or several children in diapers (in which case calling the costs food is a slight misnomer). The last time I went to Europe, I was there for 3 weeks and spent $1000 eating out for every meal (for 2 adults and a 12 year old.) That was in Paris and Madrid, and we didn't "cheap out" for food, either. We didn't do expensive, but we didn't deliberately look for cheap food.
Child care costs where I live in the US (near DC) are between $1300 and $2000 per month, per child, so those numbers seem either really cheap or reasonable, depending upon number of children.
Again, $1700 per month is pretty common (here) for a 2 bedroom apartment. If you want a house, it's a little higher or you're further from work.
My guess is you're either in a very expensive city of Europe, or you're completely out of touch with how cheap things really are. Granted, I live in one of the more expensive areas of the US, but at most housing and child care costs are double the "average" and food is more or less the same price across the country, certainly within a 10 or 15% range.
Consider the benefits you get that we don't, like 4-6 weeks of vacation compared to the average 2 weeks for US workers. Also consider the difference between social health care systems and private systems like here in the US.
/13 acre house) as I paid for my house but has a monthly payment about 1/2 of mine. I'm not sure how, but he said basically it had to do with how the government supports the housing market there. I don't know if it's true, but that could also be a factor.
On top of that, just look at our (US) society. We're consumer whores and we demand more for our time because somehow we feel that's valid. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that's how our society works. "More for me" is always the "American way" for better or worse. Right now it looks worse, but there are periods where it definitely looks better.
I'm paid just over 2 times the 2005 national average (for white collar jobs--just under 3 times for blue collar), which is high even for the DC area for an electrical engineer. I feel I'm actually over-compensated (I also get 4 weeks of vacation plus 12 holidays), but I recently bought a house that makes me feel like I'm just barely making ends meet. Yes I paid a lot for my house, and I don't need what I have. I tripled my monthly cost by moving out of my previous place and upgrading. My ex is living in Madrid, Spain with her new husband who makes somewhere around your 56000 Euro, as far as I can tell. He somehow paid the same base price for their 3 bedroom condo (compared to my 4 bedroom
Cost of living isn't really that huge in most of the United States. Some areas, San Francisco, DC, LA, NYC, and other similar cities are expensive but most of the country is fairly cheap. I think the biggest difference is we just buy more crap and somehow the government thinks that's a good thing.
"the only difference in Reps and Dems are the tie colors "
Are you sure? http://www.c-span.org/images/2004vote/bushkerry3_200.jpg
Apple has never tried to "price for exclusivity". It's just not what they're in business to do. The market for "being different" but they are the exact opposite of "different" in the media player market and hope to achieve the same in the CE market.
People do buy things to show off. They do buy them to be "different" and they do buy things to be just like everyone else. The goal of being a "different" sheep is exactly the market Apple is shooting to hit with any of their products. That's the point of the "switch" campaign.
Most of us know that any first gen product is likely to have bugs and flaws that users will find and manufacturers will fix. That's why the bell curve for product sales always has early adopters at the fringe (right), while most people are in the bell, and late-comers are in the fringe (left).
Apple is no different than any other company in their pricing schemes. Early adopters always pay more, and they expect to, for whatever their reasons. Woz has no reason to be bitching.
Depends mostly on how you stand up for your rights, not the fact that you do. The guy explained in his own blog that he was deliberately ignoring the people and didn't offer any explanation to the store employees or the cop about why he didn't acquiesce to the requests that he show his receipt.
If he had just said, "look, you have no authority to do this and I am not obligated to show you the receipt" then I doubt there would have been a problem. But he was deliberately being confrontational by not explaining his situation. When the cop arrived, he also did not offer "anything but my name" and was again, deliberately being confrontational.
I'm not saying the guy did a bad thing by standing up for himself. Quite the opposite, I like to do it the same way, but I'm more polite about it and it seems to work wonders. I don't get hassled, and I certainly don't get arrested, but I also don't give up my rights either.