Because you "simply can not understand why anyone would have a problem with that" doesn't mean their rationale is invalid. It simply means you can't understand, which only speaks to your capabilities, not the rationale behind their actions.
I agree, it's basically a dick move to push the issue, but the valid rationale is it's within his rights not to show the receipt. What more validity is there than his rights as a citizen of the US?
If I were the cop? I'd assume I'd know that I'm not allowed to arrest someone for not producing identification.
I'd assume, since I had just inspected his bag and receipt, that the store employees were incompetent assholes.
I'd assume that the guy would want to press some sort of charges (because this IS a litigious society after all) and probably try to convince him that he (and the courts) would be better served by boycotting the company and getting as many of his friends to do so, while also writing letters to the corporate headquarters.
Did you miss the part where the guy said no (or ignored the Rent-a-cop) and then was unlawlfully detained? I agree, he was being a pompous ass for not just showing the receipt, and then pushing the matter, but he was within his rights to do so.
The problem arose at that point. When the store employees detained him. It got worse when the police officer broke the law and arrested him. The guy should have never dropped his case. He should have sued the police department, or at least the individual cop and the store employees for unlawful imprisonment.
Just because you make sarcastic remarks, doesn't make them correct. You are both right and wrong about the situation. It is overdramatic "hysterical twits" that are wrong with our society today. It's also people like you, who think it's okay to "let it slide" for the sake of convenience.
You're not allowed to do anything to a suspected shoplifter until after they walk out of the store. Even if you stand there and watch them shove something in their pocket, there's no law broken yet if they haven't left store property with the item.
In South Dakota, many years ago, we had to wait until they left the parking lot completely. It made for a bitch of a task catching people, but that whole "left store property" thing made that the case. Up until they left the parking lot they were technically still on store property and could say "I forgot to pay for it and was going to go back into the store".
The ultimate solution, I think, would be to run the police station the same way a private company is run: they provide a service to their customers and their customers pay them for that service.
Because private companies never have corrupt employees, right?
The solution is for people to stand up for their rights, and make very public complaints when their rights are violated. I'm not talking about the smartass complaining that he got tazed when resisting a valid arrest. I'm talking about people who are arrested falsely, when no action on their part made it a reasonable thing to expect. I'm talking about people like the guy in the article not backing down because "someone made a call" that made them rethink their rights are worth more than a little comfort for their family, who were very unlikely to have been truly affected by the situation.
I'm talking about we, as citizens, backing each other against corrupt, over-reaching policies and practices by businesses and government alike.
o the best policy is to just arrest everyone, and let the lawyers sort it out.
How in the hell is that the best policy? I don't expect the cops to know every law, but if you're going to arrest me, you'd better damn well know why and be able to tell me why, before I'm actually arrested.
yes, it takes two seconds, but you've either not read the linked blog or you missed the point completely. you shouldn't have to show your receipt and you definitely shouldn't have to show ID to a cop when you were the person who called for help.
Like I said, a few hundred people from all walks of life and political persuasions can't be that far out of touch with 3/4 of the general population, and I'm not sure how I could "broaden my circle of friends" more than I already have. You said "When somewhere above 2/3 of the American Populace wants to close the southern border". The article you linked says "Seventy-two percent (72%) of voters say it is Very Important for "the government to improve its enforcement of the borders and reduce illegal immigration." Better enforcement isn't the same thing as "closing the southern border". I can believe the majority of the population wants better enforcement, without hesitation. The other links simply said that approximately the same percentage of people (roughly) view the issue as serious and think something needs to be done about it. That's a big leap to "closing the border" though.
I didn't say anything about the terminology you use regarding illegal aliens. I have no problem at all with the terminology. What I have a problem with is exactly what you indicated in your last statement. "Funny thing about statistics is one can make any case one wants with them, if they have the right data." There is certainly a large number of illegals who are less than desirable and who are not here to work hard. They probably have even committed as many murders as you have suggested over the years. I don't know, and random quotes from a couple of politicians doesn't really prove anything.
I do, however, agree with your whole point, that it's all just noise. We can't protect everyone, and I personally don't think the government should try to. People need to [re]learn to take care of themselves and their own communities. Reasonable precautions don't include cameras on every street corner, and certainly don't include databases of my (or anyone else's) reading habits.
"I don't know if I'm enough of a legal expert to tell you where the line is exactly, but to conclude that there is no line, or that the line cannot be drawn just because I don't know enough about it is not logically sound."
I'll answer you with this: there is definitely a line, and I don't believe that I implied there wasn't. The line is drawn at action, not thought!
Where did you come up with that statistic? Seriously, do you have a reference for that, because damn near every person I know thinks that's the stupidest idea to come across the hill in a long time. Granted, I only know a few hundred people, but they certainly can't be representative of less than 1/3 of the population.
I won't even bother to ask about the "murdered by illegal aliens" comment.
Hey coward, you're aware that a substantial portion of college bookstores are no longer owned or run by the schools, but by private companies right? Usually it seems to be Barnes and Noble, at least for the schools around the DC area. Those are 4 year schools and Community Colleges alike.
"Anyway, in the Christian religion, thoughts ARE actions in this regard. Christ himself said that anyone who lusts after a woman in his heart has already committed adultery against his wife. And that's what I believe too."
Good for you, but most of the world doesn't believe that way. Where do you draw the line? Murderous thoughts are murder? Just because the Christian bible says something doesn't make it true, and furthermore, if thought is action how do you police it? For that matter, do you want to police it? Is it right to police it? Stephen King, Dean Koontz, Bram Stoker, Wes Craven, and a whole lot of other people would then be in prison. Let's not even get into the whole realm of sex literature, because that's just insanely huge. So where does thought stop and action start?
No. I've signed several NDAs and none of them had a stipulation that I not speak of the fact that I was bound by the NDA. It all depends upon the wording of the specific agreement.
I guess it all depends on perspective. If I hate my wife and kids, that might be a good thing. Of course, being in prison for molesting children usually has some pretty negative side effects (like being molested) so yeah, I guess that might be harmful. But those are actions, not thoughts.
Effectively this is what happens when a person contracts leprosy. The nerve endings die and they injure themselves unknowingly. They do daily body checks for sign of injury in order to prevent damage becoming gangrenous or infected.
My point was that if being hit by a car ( causing serious injury) doesn't seem to phase the person, they effectively have such a high threshold that other injuries less obvious won't be noticed, as you indicate.
Your distinction makes it seem less likely that the person would just live with the pain, but I don't know that I agree. People learn to live with minor pain. People with arthritis deal with it, whether they find it uncomfortable or not. Someone with a particularly high pain threshold would therefore not necessarily think of the pain as particularly bad, and therefore wouldn't do anything about the minor pains you describe.
But it's all relative I guess. I have a high tolerance for pain, but little things annoy the hell out of me so maybe people with a really high tolerance would be the same way.
I don't think Apple is trying to specifically lock out linux users. That's just an end result of their efforts to lock out other software vendors (Microsoft, Real Media, etc.) I think you'll find that the folks at Apple know their market quite well, and don't believe they'll alienate that many customers with this change. And the market seems to show that they are right about these things. Despite what many of us here say, the folks who will boycott Apple products (even iPods) as a result of this are at the fringe edge. People simply like iPods, for whatever reason.
As for stockholders, I've never said that individual stock holders are bad (I've own Apple stock off and on since 1984 or so) but as a group, they are, in fact, greedy. And more importantly, the people making the decisions at Apple are also stock holders, and they like their money too. When a decision has a direct financial impact on you, it's a lot easier to overlook the small minority that will be bothered by said decision.
I'm a reasonable fan of Apple, but I wouldn't bet this was a fix for security purposes. They have long been proprietary with whatever it suits them to be proprietary with, while trying to woo the open source community on the other hand.
It's a fine line to walk for them, as a business beholden to stock holders, and they do a reasonable job of it in some aspects and a horrible job in others. This is just one of the ways they've done a horrible job. They've never tried to include any sort of support of the open source community with iTunes, and I wouldn't expect them to in the future.
I don't like Verizon very much, but calling my fiancee's T-Mobile phone is a lesson in annoyance. Her phone constantly drops calls, routinely doesn't get any signal where my phone has it, and often (maybe 15%-20% of the time) won't even connect when it does have a signal. It's not the hardware, either, since it's been like that with every phone she's tried (and her friends have T-Mobile as well with the same issues.) Other times it's just "network too busy" errors when trying to call.
Until I see consistent coverage and a network that lets me actually make calls when I should be able to, I'll stick with Verizon, because I can at least make the calls I need to make, even if I'm getting raped to do so.
Your anecdote gives me zero respect for bikes, because it didn't have anything do to with the capabilities of the bike, and everything to do with stupid mistakes. I can fall over from a chair and cause the same injury to myself.
Risk is part of the reward. From what you said, the guy had appropriate safety gear on and still nearly died from falling over while standing still. That shows you should have respect for the frailty of life in general, but not bikes.
True, you could definitely process a lot of water in 24 hours, but at prices like these (even though this is quite expensive as far as portable filters go) it's not difficult to provide higher numbers to accomodate families, rather than neighborhoods.
No matter how much water these can process, it won't be as much as thirsty/hungry people will need for drinking and cooking etc. Yes, you can cook with the unprocessed water (after boiling) so that reduces the need somewhat, but not much.
Slashdot Mirror
Because you "simply can not understand why anyone would have a problem with that" doesn't mean their rationale is invalid. It simply means you can't understand, which only speaks to your capabilities, not the rationale behind their actions.
I agree, it's basically a dick move to push the issue, but the valid rationale is it's within his rights not to show the receipt. What more validity is there than his rights as a citizen of the US?
If I were the cop? I'd assume I'd know that I'm not allowed to arrest someone for not producing identification.
I'd assume, since I had just inspected his bag and receipt, that the store employees were incompetent assholes.
I'd assume that the guy would want to press some sort of charges (because this IS a litigious society after all) and probably try to convince him that he (and the courts) would be better served by boycotting the company and getting as many of his friends to do so, while also writing letters to the corporate headquarters.
I'd have let him go.
Did you miss the part where the guy said no (or ignored the Rent-a-cop) and then was unlawlfully detained? I agree, he was being a pompous ass for not just showing the receipt, and then pushing the matter, but he was within his rights to do so.
The problem arose at that point. When the store employees detained him. It got worse when the police officer broke the law and arrested him. The guy should have never dropped his case. He should have sued the police department, or at least the individual cop and the store employees for unlawful imprisonment.
Just because you make sarcastic remarks, doesn't make them correct. You are both right and wrong about the situation. It is overdramatic "hysterical twits" that are wrong with our society today. It's also people like you, who think it's okay to "let it slide" for the sake of convenience.
You're not allowed to do anything to a suspected shoplifter until after they walk out of the store. Even if you stand there and watch them shove something in their pocket, there's no law broken yet if they haven't left store property with the item.
In South Dakota, many years ago, we had to wait until they left the parking lot completely. It made for a bitch of a task catching people, but that whole "left store property" thing made that the case. Up until they left the parking lot they were technically still on store property and could say "I forgot to pay for it and was going to go back into the store".
The ultimate solution, I think, would be to run the police station the same way a private company is run: they provide a service to their customers and their customers pay them for that service.
Because private companies never have corrupt employees, right?
The solution is for people to stand up for their rights, and make very public complaints when their rights are violated. I'm not talking about the smartass complaining that he got tazed when resisting a valid arrest. I'm talking about people who are arrested falsely, when no action on their part made it a reasonable thing to expect. I'm talking about people like the guy in the article not backing down because "someone made a call" that made them rethink their rights are worth more than a little comfort for their family, who were very unlikely to have been truly affected by the situation.
I'm talking about we, as citizens, backing each other against corrupt, over-reaching policies and practices by businesses and government alike.
o the best policy is to just arrest everyone, and let the lawyers sort it out.
How in the hell is that the best policy? I don't expect the cops to know every law, but if you're going to arrest me, you'd better damn well know why and be able to tell me why, before I'm actually arrested.
yes, it takes two seconds, but you've either not read the linked blog or you missed the point completely. you shouldn't have to show your receipt and you definitely shouldn't have to show ID to a cop when you were the person who called for help.
Thanks for the links.
Like I said, a few hundred people from all walks of life and political persuasions can't be that far out of touch with 3/4 of the general population, and I'm not sure how I could "broaden my circle of friends" more than I already have. You said "When somewhere above 2/3 of the American Populace wants to close the southern border". The article you linked says "Seventy-two percent (72%) of voters say it is Very Important for "the government to improve its enforcement of the borders and reduce illegal immigration." Better enforcement isn't the same thing as "closing the southern border". I can believe the majority of the population wants better enforcement, without hesitation. The other links simply said that approximately the same percentage of people (roughly) view the issue as serious and think something needs to be done about it. That's a big leap to "closing the border" though.
I didn't say anything about the terminology you use regarding illegal aliens. I have no problem at all with the terminology. What I have a problem with is exactly what you indicated in your last statement. "Funny thing about statistics is one can make any case one wants with them, if they have the right data." There is certainly a large number of illegals who are less than desirable and who are not here to work hard. They probably have even committed as many murders as you have suggested over the years. I don't know, and random quotes from a couple of politicians doesn't really prove anything.
I do, however, agree with your whole point, that it's all just noise. We can't protect everyone, and I personally don't think the government should try to. People need to [re]learn to take care of themselves and their own communities. Reasonable precautions don't include cameras on every street corner, and certainly don't include databases of my (or anyone else's) reading habits.
"I don't know if I'm enough of a legal expert to tell you where the line is exactly, but to conclude that there is no line, or that the line cannot be drawn just because I don't know enough about it is not logically sound."
I'll answer you with this: there is definitely a line, and I don't believe that I implied there wasn't. The line is drawn at action, not thought!
Where did you come up with that statistic? Seriously, do you have a reference for that, because damn near every person I know thinks that's the stupidest idea to come across the hill in a long time. Granted, I only know a few hundred people, but they certainly can't be representative of less than 1/3 of the population.
I won't even bother to ask about the "murdered by illegal aliens" comment.
Hey coward, you're aware that a substantial portion of college bookstores are no longer owned or run by the schools, but by private companies right? Usually it seems to be Barnes and Noble, at least for the schools around the DC area. Those are 4 year schools and Community Colleges alike.
"As a long time fencer, and engaged to marry another long time fencer, if I can thrust, I expect to be able to disengage, to feint, etc."
Dude, if you faint after you thrust, your fiancee must be very disappointed.
Oh wait, feint...so you're a tease. You dirty dog.
"the experience is much more tactile then visual"
Isn't the idea to see it before it hits you? I would think it would really suck the other way around, especially with a broadsword.
"Anyway, in the Christian religion, thoughts ARE actions in this regard. Christ himself said that anyone who lusts after a woman in his heart has already committed adultery against his wife. And that's what I believe too."
Good for you, but most of the world doesn't believe that way. Where do you draw the line? Murderous thoughts are murder? Just because the Christian bible says something doesn't make it true, and furthermore, if thought is action how do you police it? For that matter, do you want to police it? Is it right to police it? Stephen King, Dean Koontz, Bram Stoker, Wes Craven, and a whole lot of other people would then be in prison. Let's not even get into the whole realm of sex literature, because that's just insanely huge. So where does thought stop and action start?
No. I've signed several NDAs and none of them had a stipulation that I not speak of the fact that I was bound by the NDA. It all depends upon the wording of the specific agreement.
I guess it all depends on perspective. If I hate my wife and kids, that might be a good thing. Of course, being in prison for molesting children usually has some pretty negative side effects (like being molested) so yeah, I guess that might be harmful. But those are actions, not thoughts.
Effectively this is what happens when a person contracts leprosy. The nerve endings die and they injure themselves unknowingly. They do daily body checks for sign of injury in order to prevent damage becoming gangrenous or infected.
My point was that if being hit by a car ( causing serious injury) doesn't seem to phase the person, they effectively have such a high threshold that other injuries less obvious won't be noticed, as you indicate.
Your distinction makes it seem less likely that the person would just live with the pain, but I don't know that I agree. People learn to live with minor pain. People with arthritis deal with it, whether they find it uncomfortable or not. Someone with a particularly high pain threshold would therefore not necessarily think of the pain as particularly bad, and therefore wouldn't do anything about the minor pains you describe.
But it's all relative I guess. I have a high tolerance for pain, but little things annoy the hell out of me so maybe people with a really high tolerance would be the same way.
Just exactly what are "harmful sexual thoughts" for an adult?
I don't think Apple is trying to specifically lock out linux users. That's just an end result of their efforts to lock out other software vendors (Microsoft, Real Media, etc.) I think you'll find that the folks at Apple know their market quite well, and don't believe they'll alienate that many customers with this change. And the market seems to show that they are right about these things. Despite what many of us here say, the folks who will boycott Apple products (even iPods) as a result of this are at the fringe edge. People simply like iPods, for whatever reason.
As for stockholders, I've never said that individual stock holders are bad (I've own Apple stock off and on since 1984 or so) but as a group, they are, in fact, greedy. And more importantly, the people making the decisions at Apple are also stock holders, and they like their money too. When a decision has a direct financial impact on you, it's a lot easier to overlook the small minority that will be bothered by said decision.
What's the difference if his threshold is so high that being hit by a car doesn't seem to hurt?
I'm a reasonable fan of Apple, but I wouldn't bet this was a fix for security purposes. They have long been proprietary with whatever it suits them to be proprietary with, while trying to woo the open source community on the other hand.
It's a fine line to walk for them, as a business beholden to stock holders, and they do a reasonable job of it in some aspects and a horrible job in others. This is just one of the ways they've done a horrible job. They've never tried to include any sort of support of the open source community with iTunes, and I wouldn't expect them to in the future.
I don't like Verizon very much, but calling my fiancee's T-Mobile phone is a lesson in annoyance. Her phone constantly drops calls, routinely doesn't get any signal where my phone has it, and often (maybe 15%-20% of the time) won't even connect when it does have a signal. It's not the hardware, either, since it's been like that with every phone she's tried (and her friends have T-Mobile as well with the same issues.) Other times it's just "network too busy" errors when trying to call.
Until I see consistent coverage and a network that lets me actually make calls when I should be able to, I'll stick with Verizon, because I can at least make the calls I need to make, even if I'm getting raped to do so.
Unconceivable!
Your anecdote gives me zero respect for bikes, because it didn't have anything do to with the capabilities of the bike, and everything to do with stupid mistakes. I can fall over from a chair and cause the same injury to myself.
Risk is part of the reward. From what you said, the guy had appropriate safety gear on and still nearly died from falling over while standing still. That shows you should have respect for the frailty of life in general, but not bikes.
True, you could definitely process a lot of water in 24 hours, but at prices like these (even though this is quite expensive as far as portable filters go) it's not difficult to provide higher numbers to accomodate families, rather than neighborhoods.
No matter how much water these can process, it won't be as much as thirsty/hungry people will need for drinking and cooking etc. Yes, you can cook with the unprocessed water (after boiling) so that reduces the need somewhat, but not much.