What's wrong with this criticism? [preferring a lighter weight amp because it's easier to move for cleaning]
1. Choosing an amp for low weight is like choosing a PC based on its color. 2. People who have that little appreciation for music should not be allowed to listen to it.
Now, I understand why the salons tout these magic cables, line impedence.
Keep in mind that the magic cables are most often sold as RCA-plugged component interconnects. And it's not just impedence. There is capacitance and inductance. It's that reactive load that makes more difference than impedence.
I was under the impression that amps had to be matched to speakers (max power transfer when output impedence = speaker load).
Again, it's the capacitance and inductance that makes the most difference. Also, don't confuse output impedence with input impedence. They are very different things.
One problem with this is that consumer electronics don't relate to cars. Cars do not have new features coming out every three to six months.
That's not the point. If consumers would prefer cheap and shoddy merchandise over expensive, high-quality merchandise, then why aren't cars getting cheaper and shoddier?
Besides, cars are coming out with new features constantly. Just read (or watch) Autoweek for plenty of examples (e.g., BMW and Ferrari's paddle-shifted, computer controlled manual transmission/clutch systems).
Outside of MP3 playback, there are very few features that today's DVD players have that those of two years ago did not. Sure, there are a few examples here and there, but are they really significant to the rent-and-play crowd? I don't think so.
But some people want the newest and flashiest things. I encourage that, because they debug the things that I'll buy when they work right.
But by the time you buy them, the manufacturers may well be into the cheap commodity market: The steel chassis replaced with plastic, the hefty toroidal power supply transformer replaced with a barely adequate conventional transformer, and the high-quality, class-A output stages replaced with cheap op-amps.
Early adopters demand quality -- and get it. When the devices go mass-market and show up at Walmart, the only thing that matters is price.
I think if you're looking for something that won't come apart or melt or just overheat, most consumers can pick that out and choose not to pay for it.
I don't think that they can. Most consumers don't even know that weight is often a sign of quality in an amplifier (yeah, that's a generalisation, but it's a relatively good bet).
If consumers are so smart, why do they buy $49 VCRs and then put their only copie of their wedding videos in them, only to have the tapes be mangled beyond repair?
If you can buy a device for a third of the price that will break in half the time, then that is still a better choice.
You drive a Kia, don't you?
I would rather have something that worked well for a long time than a series of low-quality pieces of junk that neither worked well nor lasted long. Who wants a VCR that produces a poor quality image for two years rather than a VCR that produces a good quality image for four years?
In fact, going back to the car comment, why aren't cars getting cheaper and shoddier all of the time? It's because consumers can more readily understand and evaluate them than electronics.
And tell me where to find a good dealer who can keep me informed on quality gear.
Good luck. Many of the boutique audio "salons" have a bunch of effete snobs who play an Emperor's-New-Clothes game, claiming that a "true audiophile" can hear the superiority of the gear that they sell. Of course, they are completely unwilling to do a double-blind test to prove that they can hear any difference. And you already know my opinion of the mass-market stores like Best Buy and Circuit City.
You're talking about reproduction/distortion concepts that, although I could look up in a few minutes, I (almost most everyone else) doesn't understand how they interrelate to produce quality audio.
As you probably know, there isn't a magic or formula into which you can plug numbers to determine audio quality. But certain numbers can tell you a lot. For instance, gear with a very low output impedence will be relatively unaffected by reactive loads. "Magic" cables sold by the salons are unlikely to have a lot of effect on the sound of such gear. A turntable or tape deck with high wow & flutter figure is likely to make piano notes sound sour. A particularly low signal to noise ratio is usually indicative of good power supply filtration and high-quality analog components.
I certainly did not mean to imply that specs can tell you everything about sound, but they can reveal a lot about the quality of the equipment being purchased.
Want to bet? Most people do not know how to interpret even the most basic specifications. When I started out in stereo equipment in the 1970's, you could go to any dealer and get handouts with product specifications on just about any product sold. You could compare transient intermodulation distortion, total harmonic distortion, FM sensitivity, wow & flutter, etc. Now you go into some place like Best Buy or Circuit City and there is nothing but a tag on the shelf. You're lucky if it shows even the most basic specs (e.g., watts per channel, number of discs the changer holds, etc.) and God help you if you ask the salesman for anything more. He'll look at you like you have three heads.
Consumers are stupid. They don't understand the concept of quality and, instead, concentrate on easily understood features. They don't understand that MOSFETs produce psycho-acoustically benign even-order harmonics when they distort and that conventional transistors product annoying odd-order harmonics. They think that a heavier amplifier is worse becaue it's harder to move around for cleaning. They are oblivious to the fact that speakers that are 3db more efficient take half the power to drive them to a given SPL. Talk to them about output impedence or signal to noise ratio and their eyes glaze over.
The original poster was 100% correct. The popularisation of consumer electronics has lead to lower quality in order to appease consumers who purchase receivers based on watts-per-dollar. Want high quality goods? Stop letting ignorant people make purchase decisions.
I don't want a PVR that runs Linux. I want a PVR that works well. I don't give a rat's ass what OS it runs. In fact, I don't want to see the OS. I just want a powerful, user-friendly interface and software that does not require that I do anything to make it work other than select the programs I want to record.
Oh, wait... That's why I bought a TiVo. {Yes, it runs Linux under the hood, but, thankfully, that's well-hidden.}
I will never understand the Linux users that need daily affirmations of their operating system choice. Article after article on Slashdot is published about handhelds, PVRs, etc. that run Linux. It's like the Special Olympics of operating systems; everyone involved gets a ribbon.
I'm not 100% sure that the sun will rise tomorrow. But I'm pretty damned sure that a terrorist is not going to be able to create nuke small enough to hide on a person.
Incarceration is a seizure. Should I cite the Supreme Court ruling which stated that?
No. I'll take your word for it.
My argument is that the use of the detector is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The strip search may be, depending on what other evidence was collected.
Because the detector cannot differentiate between someone carrying a smoke detector and someone undergoing radiation therapy, I'd agree.
But if the detector is being used to gather "evidence", then it is a search. And I certainly don't think that an unwarranted search made without probable cause (using the detector) should be used as the excuse to detain and further search an individual.
You're taking that out of context. The point is that the police aren't violating the constitution by mere possession of the device (in this case the radiation detector), but by its use in searching people with it. In this case, I disagree.
That was my understanding of the ruling and I was not taking it out of context. That summarizes it nicely.
The reason AOL software configures your dialup is pretty obvious...
That's the point: They don't just configure your dial-up, which would be fine. Instead, they put an entire set of proprietary tools in place, some of which, at least in the past, have made it impossible for neophyte users who were using AOL on a trial basis to connect with other ISPs. If you try to remove the AOL software with an uninstall, countless droppings remain on your disc, desktop, and menus.
fmaxwell: I was not aware that a nuke could be constructed such that it was so small that it could be hidden on a person.
anthony_dipierro: Your loss.
Let me be more blunt since the subtlety was lost on you: No terrorist will be able to construct a nuke of that size.
If that's true (and I'm not sure if it is), then I disagree with it. What ruling was this, anyway?
I have spent about 1/2 hour trying to find a ruling or law either way (regarding use of parabolic microphones for eavesdropping) and have been unsuccessful. It appears that, if your neighbors are standing on the sidewalk, it's probably legal to listen to, but not record, the conversation.
So it's reasonable to lock someone up for coming into contact with a controlled nuclear materials, but it's not reasonable to have a radiation detector detect that in the first place, with a minimum of invasion of privacy?
The Fourth Amendment's "reasonable" clause refers to searches and siezures, not incarcerations. Besides, if some guy sets the detectors off, the police are going to want to know why. Let's be realistic here: The police are looking for terrorists who have been involved in creating radioactive weapons. It's like someone wandering into the the subway covered in blood. He may be a butcher or a surgeon, but the police are likely to detain him if he refuses to provide an explanation for his condition.
In any case, the court has "never held that potential, as opposed to actual, invasions of privacy constitute searches for purposes of the Fourth Amendment" (US v. Karo). So the question is what is the actual in vasion of privacy of the detector, not what is the potential invasion.
If the police stood idly by while the detectors went off, there would be minimal invasion of privacy. If that has been the entire thrust of your argument, than we are basically in agreement.
Obviously, that's not what is happening. When a detector goes off, the person setting it off is pulled aside, stripped nude, searched, and questioned. That's an invasion of privacy. As the Court rule in UNITED STATES v. KARO: "It is the exploitation of technological advances that implicates the Fourth Amendment, not their mere existence."
Because they can detect a dirty bomb, nuke, or other health dangers with a minimal of intrusion.
I was not aware that a nuke could be constructed such that it was so small that it could be hidden on a person.
But "intrusion" isn't the issue. The issue is the invasion of privacy. That it does not inconvenience most people is immaterial.
I don't feel that using a radiation detector on my neighbor should be a tort, so I likewise don't believe that govenment use of one should be considered a search.
It's not a tort for you to use a parabolic microphone hear what your neighbors are saying, but it would be for law enforcement to do so without probable cause. There are different standards between law enforcement and private citizens regarding surveillance. For Example, the Fourth Ammendment does not guarantee that I will not point an infrared camera at your house.
I never said that police have the right to detain people as a suspected terrorist simply for having radiation coming off them.
Whether you said it or not, they do have that right. They can simply state that the person had come in contact with controlled nuclear materials and that he/she provided no explanation for same. Thus, the detention.
Nope, they were all decided.
That does not mean that they cannot be challenged on other grounds or when similar, but not identical programs, are instituted. For example, there is the Texas case of Tannahill v. Lockney where an entire student body is being targeted for drug testing.
But I side with the ACLU on those cases as well, and I probably side with the ACLU on this question, of whether or not radiation detectors are reasonable.
It is my sincere hope that a more liberal House and Senate some day pass laws to undo the damage wrought by the recent conservative Supreme Court decisions.
I never said I had any concerns about a hypothetical dirty bomb.
Then why would you feel that radiation detectors pointed at innocent citizens were reasonable?
This is a much different situation. For one thing, there is a much lower expectation of privacy.
You think that someone has a lower expectation of privacy about the internal medical treatments they are receiving than does someone growing pot plants (Kyllo) in his home? Not in my book.
This detector does not detect tratement regimens, and certainly not medical conditions.
You are arguing semantics. Its use indirectly forces the patient to tell police officers why the detector went off. If no explanation is given, the person might be detained for hours, days, weeks, or even months as a suspected terrorist. I don't think that the police will let the person go unless he/she explains where they came in contact with nuclear materials.
No, you have not considered the governmental interest, so you have not shown whether or not the search is reasonable. For instance metal detectors and imaging devices in airports are reasonable, roadblocks to check for sobriety and even to search for drugs are reasonable, drug testing of students in extracurricular activities are reasonable, etc.
Metal detectors and imaging devices in airports are clearly visible and there are even signs pointing out their use. People can choose to avoid them (by avoiding airline travel). The radiation detectors, as I understand from reading the articles, are neither visible nor is their use advertised.
I disagree that the other examples are reasonable searches. I side with the ACLU on those and some are still being fought through the court system.
No argument with anything you said and it was not news to me.
But I happen to feel that standards are a good thing and I do not want to encourage those who would deviate from them. If AOL's non-standard interface to the Internet breaks things, that's great as far as I am concerned. I want people who choose AOL to regret their choice and transition over to a standards-based service. After all, the Internet is successful because of standards.
AOL has millions of users. If I sell a POP3-based e-mail spam filtering product, that's millions people who can't use it. It's countless tech support calls from AOL users that don't understand why it won't work. It's hassles from stores that sell the product because AOL users keep returning it. No thanks. I'd rather have standards. If AOL wants to differentiate themselves, they can provide client-side software that does that without breaking everything at the network level.
If indeed you are my intellectual equal then I can only conclude that you have some serious irrational fears.
First I didn't have "half a brain" and now I am "irrational." Is that an improvement?
So my concerns about a continued erosion of our Constitutional rights are "irrational" but your concerns about a hypothetical dirty bomb are not? Why is that?
I'm not sure I would classify the use of a radiation detector as a search, let alone an unreasonable one.
I would. The Supreme Court, in Kyllo vs. U.S., ruled that authorities scanning a home with an infrared camera without a warrant constituted an unreasonable search barred by the Fourth Amendment. The Court explained that it ruled the way that it did because the device [an infrared imaging system] is not in general use by the public, so Kyllo had an expectation of privacy, and because the imaging provided by the camera revealed details about Kyllo's home "that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion."
"To withdraw protection of this minimum expectation would be to permit police technology to erode the privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment," the majority opinion said.
I contend that, a cancer patient has reasonable expectations of privacy regarding their medical condition and treatmen regimen when they go out in public. Radiation detectors are not in general use by the public and reveal information that would otherwise have been unknowable (to police). Thus, the use of said detectors is an unreasonable search.
Would you likewise claim that a police officer who uses his eyesight to look at someone is violating the civil rights of that person?
I said Constitutional rights, not civil rights. But in answer to your question, if the officer happens to see something with his unaided eyes in a public place, then, no, I would not.
Maybe to have radiation detectors in the first place, but anyone with half a brain can see that that's a good idea.
I am easily your intellectual equal and I do not believe that the radiation detectors are a "good idea." They are an erosion of our Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable and unwarranted searches by law enforcement. I do not believe in ceding Constitutional rights every time the Bush Administration cries "terrorist!"
I would appreciate it if you would debate not engage in pre-emptive ad-hominem attacks against anyone who does not share your opinions. Claiming that "anyone with half a brain can see that that's a good idea" implies that anyone who does not agree with you is stupid. That's no way to debate.
What industry standards has AOL refused to follow? Just curious.
POP3, SMTP, and even basic system logons, to name a few. If they followed industry standards, you would not need to use their proprietary CD to gain access to AOL, would you? You could simply configure the phone number, name, and password like you do with any normal ISP.
The above list is not intended to complete, but is just some examples.
NO!!! If AOL refuses to follow industry standards, then they should pay the price. If enough AOL users get tired of things not working, perhaps an end can be put to the AOL juggernaut.
Jeb did stay out of the issue. Don't let the facts get in the way of your arguments, however; I find it so amusing!
While Jeb supposedly recused himself, that was simply window dressing. During an interview on NBC's Today show on Nov. 29, former President Bush let slip the truth:
"I'm trying to stay out of politics. Stay off the stage, leave this to George and his very capable team. Leave it to Jeb [and] his equally capable team."
The admission that Jeb and his "capable team" were taking care of the family's political business in Florida clashed with the official story of Jeb as uninvolved.
"Black helicopter freaks" are typically right-wing conservatives who believe that the government is out to get them. That hardly describes a left-leaning Democrat.
Had the above mentiond public servants recused themselves from their elected duties
When someone has a conflict of interest, it is their 'duty' to recuse themselves. At that point in time, they have no other duties.
"Gore stole the election in Florida since all of the recounts show that Bush was the winner."
Then why would Gore have won if those with a conflict of interest recused themselves? Actually, subsequent recounts have varied, with some giving Gore the win and others giving Bush the win -- depending on recount criteria.
Against state law, Harris accepted the first count from Nassau County (which had a discrepancy) not the machine recount (+52 Gore). The Miami-Dade board, co-opted by Miami's murky political stew, didn't even send in the 157 votes they found for Gore in the small portion they did count before they were "shut down" by Tom DeLay's Congressional rioters.
But it was not solely the recount that was at issue. According to the London Guardian, Harris erroneously booted 9000-12,000 voters (disproportionately black) off the rolls for supposedly being felons 5 months before the election - only 8000 were reinstated. In Seminole (south of Daytona), Republican officials camped out for 10 days in the supervisor's office adding voter numbers to 4800 forms. In Martin Co., they let Republican officials take them home. Florida has a very strict absentee law. The Republican campaign's altering of the ballots was not a technicality, as the Party's been saying, but a 3rd degree felony - only the voter or relatives can touch them.
"Gore's election is a sham beacue the election results were never certified by the Florida's Secretary of State (as required by Florida law), since she recused herself."
When someone recuses themselves, the duties pass to another person. For instance, judges recuse themselves all of the time, and the trials are simply heard by other judges.
Yes, it's almost as bad as the distortion that Bush was "appointed" President.
That is not a distortion. It is a fact. Florida's own laws regarding election recounts were broken in order to assure Bush's "victory." Kathleen Harris, Florida's then Secretary of State, was G.W. Bush's Campaign Chairman in Florida. Jeb, as we all know, is the President's brother. Both of them should have recused themselves from the debacle. Instead, Harris ordered a stop to the recounts in order to assure victory for her candidate.
Slashdot Mirror
What's wrong with this criticism? [preferring a lighter weight amp because it's easier to move for cleaning]
1. Choosing an amp for low weight is like choosing a PC based on its color.
2. People who have that little appreciation for music should not be allowed to listen to it.
Oh, really good solution, that. Who WILL make the purchase decisions for them?
A licensed expert in the field.
Idiot.
Thank you for signing your posting.
Now, I understand why the salons tout these magic cables, line impedence.
Keep in mind that the magic cables are most often sold as RCA-plugged component interconnects. And it's not just impedence. There is capacitance and inductance. It's that reactive load that makes more difference than impedence.
I was under the impression that amps had to be matched to speakers (max power transfer when output impedence = speaker load).
Again, it's the capacitance and inductance that makes the most difference. Also, don't confuse output impedence with input impedence. They are very different things.
One problem with this is that consumer electronics don't relate to cars. Cars do not have new features coming out every three to six months.
That's not the point. If consumers would prefer cheap and shoddy merchandise over expensive, high-quality merchandise, then why aren't cars getting cheaper and shoddier?
Besides, cars are coming out with new features constantly. Just read (or watch) Autoweek for plenty of examples (e.g., BMW and Ferrari's paddle-shifted, computer controlled manual transmission/clutch systems).
Outside of MP3 playback, there are very few features that today's DVD players have that those of two years ago did not. Sure, there are a few examples here and there, but are they really significant to the rent-and-play crowd? I don't think so.
But some people want the newest and flashiest things. I encourage that, because they debug the things that I'll buy when they work right.
But by the time you buy them, the manufacturers may well be into the cheap commodity market: The steel chassis replaced with plastic, the hefty toroidal power supply transformer replaced with a barely adequate conventional transformer, and the high-quality, class-A output stages replaced with cheap op-amps.
Early adopters demand quality -- and get it. When the devices go mass-market and show up at Walmart, the only thing that matters is price.
I think if you're looking for something that won't come apart or melt or just overheat, most consumers can pick that out and choose not to pay for it.
I don't think that they can. Most consumers don't even know that weight is often a sign of quality in an amplifier (yeah, that's a generalisation, but it's a relatively good bet).
If consumers are so smart, why do they buy $49 VCRs and then put their only copie of their wedding videos in them, only to have the tapes be mangled beyond repair?
If you can buy a device for a third of the price that will break in half the time, then that is still a better choice.
You drive a Kia, don't you?
I would rather have something that worked well for a long time than a series of low-quality pieces of junk that neither worked well nor lasted long. Who wants a VCR that produces a poor quality image for two years rather than a VCR that produces a good quality image for four years?
In fact, going back to the car comment, why aren't cars getting cheaper and shoddier all of the time? It's because consumers can more readily understand and evaluate them than electronics.
Kiss me, you crazy fool.
;-)
Let's just be friends.
And tell me where to find a good dealer who can keep me informed on quality gear.
Good luck. Many of the boutique audio "salons" have a bunch of effete snobs who play an Emperor's-New-Clothes game, claiming that a "true audiophile" can hear the superiority of the gear that they sell. Of course, they are completely unwilling to do a double-blind test to prove that they can hear any difference. And you already know my opinion of the mass-market stores like Best Buy and Circuit City.
You're talking about reproduction/distortion concepts that, although I could look up in a few minutes, I (almost most everyone else) doesn't understand how they interrelate to produce quality audio.
As you probably know, there isn't a magic or formula into which you can plug numbers to determine audio quality. But certain numbers can tell you a lot. For instance, gear with a very low output impedence will be relatively unaffected by reactive loads. "Magic" cables sold by the salons are unlikely to have a lot of effect on the sound of such gear. A turntable or tape deck with high wow & flutter figure is likely to make piano notes sound sour. A particularly low signal to noise ratio is usually indicative of good power supply filtration and high-quality analog components.
I certainly did not mean to imply that specs can tell you everything about sound, but they can reveal a lot about the quality of the equipment being purchased.
I think people can full well recognise quality.
Want to bet? Most people do not know how to interpret even the most basic specifications. When I started out in stereo equipment in the 1970's, you could go to any dealer and get handouts with product specifications on just about any product sold. You could compare transient intermodulation distortion, total harmonic distortion, FM sensitivity, wow & flutter, etc. Now you go into some place like Best Buy or Circuit City and there is nothing but a tag on the shelf. You're lucky if it shows even the most basic specs (e.g., watts per channel, number of discs the changer holds, etc.) and God help you if you ask the salesman for anything more. He'll look at you like you have three heads.
Consumers are stupid. They don't understand the concept of quality and, instead, concentrate on easily understood features. They don't understand that MOSFETs produce psycho-acoustically benign even-order harmonics when they distort and that conventional transistors product annoying odd-order harmonics. They think that a heavier amplifier is worse becaue it's harder to move around for cleaning. They are oblivious to the fact that speakers that are 3db more efficient take half the power to drive them to a given SPL. Talk to them about output impedence or signal to noise ratio and their eyes glaze over.
The original poster was 100% correct. The popularisation of consumer electronics has lead to lower quality in order to appease consumers who purchase receivers based on watts-per-dollar. Want high quality goods? Stop letting ignorant people make purchase decisions.
I don't want a PVR that runs Linux. I want a PVR that works well. I don't give a rat's ass what OS it runs. In fact, I don't want to see the OS. I just want a powerful, user-friendly interface and software that does not require that I do anything to make it work other than select the programs I want to record.
Oh, wait... That's why I bought a TiVo. {Yes, it runs Linux under the hood, but, thankfully, that's well-hidden.}
I will never understand the Linux users that need daily affirmations of their operating system choice. Article after article on Slashdot is published about handhelds, PVRs, etc. that run Linux. It's like the Special Olympics of operating systems; everyone involved gets a ribbon.
Are you 100% sure of this?
I'm not 100% sure that the sun will rise tomorrow. But I'm pretty damned sure that a terrorist is not going to be able to create nuke small enough to hide on a person.
Incarceration is a seizure. Should I cite the Supreme Court ruling which stated that?
No. I'll take your word for it.
My argument is that the use of the detector is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The strip search may be, depending on what other evidence was collected.
Because the detector cannot differentiate between someone carrying a smoke detector and someone undergoing radiation therapy, I'd agree.
But if the detector is being used to gather "evidence", then it is a search. And I certainly don't think that an unwarranted search made without probable cause (using the detector) should be used as the excuse to detain and further search an individual.
You're taking that out of context. The point is that the police aren't violating the constitution by mere possession of the device (in this case the radiation detector), but by its use in searching people with it. In this case, I disagree.
That was my understanding of the ruling and I was not taking it out of context. That summarizes it nicely.
I think that this line from the article is a bit disturbing:
This should provide drainage for any water that condenses or somehow gets into your can...
The reason AOL software configures your dialup is pretty obvious...
That's the point: They don't just configure your dial-up, which would be fine. Instead, they put an entire set of proprietary tools in place, some of which, at least in the past, have made it impossible for neophyte users who were using AOL on a trial basis to connect with other ISPs. If you try to remove the AOL software with an uninstall, countless droppings remain on your disc, desktop, and menus.
I didn't take it too literally, fscktard. Learn how to communicate.
I communicate perfectly clearly (and am a published author). That you are too stupid to be able to extrapolate from an example is not my fault.
But since you insist on making an ass of yourself (and because you pissed me off), I'll lend a hand. You wrote:
"Absolutely wrong. AOL users are people who don't want to buy/install/manage spam filtering software."
That's utter bullshit and here's proof:
From http://www.emailspamblocker.com/: "Email Spam Blocker for America Online AOL(TM) 7.0 - 8.0"
Go to http://www.antispam-software.net/products.htm and you will see SPAM INSPECTOR for America Online 7.0
From the Mailwasher homepage: "AOL support coming later."
Happy now, asshole?
If you really are as stupid as you seem, I can see why you post anonymously.
fmaxwell: I was not aware that a nuke could be constructed such that it was so small that it could be hidden on a person.
anthony_dipierro: Your loss.
Let me be more blunt since the subtlety was lost on you: No terrorist will be able to construct a nuke of that size.
If that's true (and I'm not sure if it is), then I disagree with it. What ruling was this, anyway?
I have spent about 1/2 hour trying to find a ruling or law either way (regarding use of parabolic microphones for eavesdropping) and have been unsuccessful. It appears that, if your neighbors are standing on the sidewalk, it's probably legal to listen to, but not record, the conversation.
So it's reasonable to lock someone up for coming into contact with a controlled nuclear materials, but it's not reasonable to have a radiation detector detect that in the first place, with a minimum of invasion of privacy?
The Fourth Amendment's "reasonable" clause refers to searches and siezures, not incarcerations. Besides, if some guy sets the detectors off, the police are going to want to know why. Let's be realistic here: The police are looking for terrorists who have been involved in creating radioactive weapons. It's like someone wandering into the the subway covered in blood. He may be a butcher or a surgeon, but the police are likely to detain him if he refuses to provide an explanation for his condition.
In any case, the court has "never held that potential, as opposed to actual, invasions of privacy constitute searches for purposes of the Fourth Amendment" (US v. Karo). So the question is what is the actual in vasion of privacy of the detector, not what is the potential invasion.
If the police stood idly by while the detectors went off, there would be minimal invasion of privacy. If that has been the entire thrust of your argument, than we are basically in agreement.
Obviously, that's not what is happening. When a detector goes off, the person setting it off is pulled aside, stripped nude, searched, and questioned. That's an invasion of privacy. As the Court rule in UNITED STATES v. KARO: "It is the exploitation of technological advances that implicates the Fourth Amendment, not their mere existence."
How is the parent a "troll"? How can providing providing factual information regarding an interview be considered trolling?
"Troll" does not mean something that you don't want to hear.
Because they can detect a dirty bomb, nuke, or other health dangers with a minimal of intrusion.
I was not aware that a nuke could be constructed such that it was so small that it could be hidden on a person.
But "intrusion" isn't the issue. The issue is the invasion of privacy. That it does not inconvenience most people is immaterial.
I don't feel that using a radiation detector on my neighbor should be a tort, so I likewise don't believe that govenment use of one should be considered a search.
It's not a tort for you to use a parabolic microphone hear what your neighbors are saying, but it would be for law enforcement to do so without probable cause. There are different standards between law enforcement and private citizens regarding surveillance. For Example, the Fourth Ammendment does not guarantee that I will not point an infrared camera at your house.
I never said that police have the right to detain people as a suspected terrorist simply for having radiation coming off them.
Whether you said it or not, they do have that right. They can simply state that the person had come in contact with controlled nuclear materials and that he/she provided no explanation for same. Thus, the detention.
Nope, they were all decided.
That does not mean that they cannot be challenged on other grounds or when similar, but not identical programs, are instituted. For example, there is the Texas case of Tannahill v. Lockney where an entire student body is being targeted for drug testing.
But I side with the ACLU on those cases as well, and I probably side with the ACLU on this question, of whether or not radiation detectors are reasonable.
It is my sincere hope that a more liberal House and Senate some day pass laws to undo the damage wrought by the recent conservative Supreme Court decisions.
I never said I had any concerns about a hypothetical dirty bomb.
Then why would you feel that radiation detectors pointed at innocent citizens were reasonable?
This is a much different situation. For one thing, there is a much lower expectation of privacy.
You think that someone has a lower expectation of privacy about the internal medical treatments they are receiving than does someone growing pot plants (Kyllo) in his home? Not in my book.
This detector does not detect tratement regimens, and certainly not medical conditions.
You are arguing semantics. Its use indirectly forces the patient to tell police officers why the detector went off. If no explanation is given, the person might be detained for hours, days, weeks, or even months as a suspected terrorist. I don't think that the police will let the person go unless he/she explains where they came in contact with nuclear materials.
No, you have not considered the governmental interest, so you have not shown whether or not the search is reasonable. For instance metal detectors and imaging devices in airports are reasonable, roadblocks to check for sobriety and even to search for drugs are reasonable, drug testing of students in extracurricular activities are reasonable, etc.
Metal detectors and imaging devices in airports are clearly visible and there are even signs pointing out their use. People can choose to avoid them (by avoiding airline travel). The radiation detectors, as I understand from reading the articles, are neither visible nor is their use advertised.
I disagree that the other examples are reasonable searches. I side with the ACLU on those and some are still being fought through the court system.
Absolutely wrong. AOL users are people who don't want to buy/install/manage spam filtering software.
It was just an example. I could have just as easily mentioned some other kind of software -- like financial management software.
You need to stop taking examples so literally.
No argument with anything you said and it was not news to me.
But I happen to feel that standards are a good thing and I do not want to encourage those who would deviate from them. If AOL's non-standard interface to the Internet breaks things, that's great as far as I am concerned. I want people who choose AOL to regret their choice and transition over to a standards-based service. After all, the Internet is successful because of standards.
AOL has millions of users. If I sell a POP3-based e-mail spam filtering product, that's millions people who can't use it. It's countless tech support calls from AOL users that don't understand why it won't work. It's hassles from stores that sell the product because AOL users keep returning it. No thanks. I'd rather have standards. If AOL wants to differentiate themselves, they can provide client-side software that does that without breaking everything at the network level.
If indeed you are my intellectual equal then I can only conclude that you have some serious irrational fears.
First I didn't have "half a brain" and now I am "irrational." Is that an improvement?
So my concerns about a continued erosion of our Constitutional rights are "irrational" but your concerns about a hypothetical dirty bomb are not? Why is that?
I'm not sure I would classify the use of a radiation detector as a search, let alone an unreasonable one.
I would. The Supreme Court, in Kyllo vs. U.S., ruled that authorities scanning a home with an infrared camera without a warrant constituted an unreasonable search barred by the Fourth Amendment. The Court explained that it ruled the way that it did because the device [an infrared imaging system] is not in general use by the public, so Kyllo had an expectation of privacy, and because the imaging provided by the camera revealed details about Kyllo's home "that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion."
"To withdraw protection of this minimum expectation would be to permit police technology to erode the privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment," the majority opinion said.
I contend that, a cancer patient has reasonable expectations of privacy regarding their medical condition and treatmen regimen when they go out in public. Radiation detectors are not in general use by the public and reveal information that would otherwise have been unknowable (to police). Thus, the use of said detectors is an unreasonable search.
Would you likewise claim that a police officer who uses his eyesight to look at someone is violating the civil rights of that person?
I said Constitutional rights, not civil rights. But in answer to your question, if the officer happens to see something with his unaided eyes in a public place, then, no, I would not.
Are you implying that I do?
I believe that sometimes you do, as in this case.
Maybe to have radiation detectors in the first place, but anyone with half a brain can see that that's a good idea.
I am easily your intellectual equal and I do not believe that the radiation detectors are a "good idea." They are an erosion of our Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable and unwarranted searches by law enforcement. I do not believe in ceding Constitutional rights every time the Bush Administration cries "terrorist!"
I would appreciate it if you would debate not engage in pre-emptive ad-hominem attacks against anyone who does not share your opinions. Claiming that "anyone with half a brain can see that that's a good idea" implies that anyone who does not agree with you is stupid. That's no way to debate.
What industry standards has AOL refused to follow? Just curious.
POP3, SMTP, and even basic system logons, to name a few. If they followed industry standards, you would not need to use their proprietary CD to gain access to AOL, would you? You could simply configure the phone number, name, and password like you do with any normal ISP.
The above list is not intended to complete, but is just some examples.
And an AOL client...
NO!!! If AOL refuses to follow industry standards, then they should pay the price. If enough AOL users get tired of things not working, perhaps an end can be put to the AOL juggernaut.
Jeb did stay out of the issue. Don't let the facts get in the way of your arguments, however; I find it so amusing!
While Jeb supposedly recused himself, that was simply window dressing. During an interview on NBC's Today show on Nov. 29, former President Bush let slip the truth:
"I'm trying to stay out of politics. Stay off the stage, leave this to George and his very capable team. Leave it to Jeb [and] his equally capable team."
The admission that Jeb and his "capable team" were taking care of the family's political business in Florida clashed with the official story of Jeb as uninvolved.
Try not to be so naive.
You black helicopter freaks make me sick.
"Black helicopter freaks" are typically right-wing conservatives who believe that the government is out to get them. That hardly describes a left-leaning Democrat.
Had the above mentiond public servants recused themselves from their elected duties
When someone has a conflict of interest, it is their 'duty' to recuse themselves. At that point in time, they have no other duties.
"Gore stole the election in Florida since all of the recounts show that Bush was the winner."
Then why would Gore have won if those with a conflict of interest recused themselves? Actually, subsequent recounts have varied, with some giving Gore the win and others giving Bush the win -- depending on recount criteria.
Against state law, Harris accepted the first count from Nassau County (which had a discrepancy) not the machine recount (+52 Gore). The Miami-Dade board, co-opted by Miami's murky political stew, didn't even send in the 157 votes they found for Gore in the small portion they did count before they were "shut down" by Tom DeLay's Congressional rioters.
But it was not solely the recount that was at issue. According to the London Guardian, Harris erroneously booted 9000-12,000 voters (disproportionately black) off the rolls for supposedly being felons 5 months before the election - only 8000 were reinstated. In Seminole (south of Daytona), Republican officials camped out for 10 days in the supervisor's office adding voter numbers to 4800 forms. In Martin Co., they let Republican officials take them home. Florida has a very strict absentee law. The Republican campaign's altering of the ballots was not a technicality, as the Party's been saying, but a 3rd degree felony - only the voter or relatives can touch them.
"Gore's election is a sham beacue the election results were never certified by the Florida's Secretary of State (as required by Florida law), since she recused herself."
When someone recuses themselves, the duties pass to another person. For instance, judges recuse themselves all of the time, and the trials are simply heard by other judges.
Yes, it's almost as bad as the distortion that Bush was "appointed" President.
That is not a distortion. It is a fact. Florida's own laws regarding election recounts were broken in order to assure Bush's "victory." Kathleen Harris, Florida's then Secretary of State, was G.W. Bush's Campaign Chairman in Florida. Jeb, as we all know, is the President's brother. Both of them should have recused themselves from the debacle. Instead, Harris ordered a stop to the recounts in order to assure victory for her candidate.