They are moving sand, silt, clay, and other fine particulate matter from one part of the sea bed to another part of the sea, where it will become suspended in the water column, traveling far and wide across the sea for weeks, months, even years, before completely settling back out, and the clarity returns to normal levels the coral depends on to recieve the sunlight it needs to thrive.
"not heavy dredging spoil which by definition does not" EEEHHH WRONG. it's not heavy dredging spoil.
its fine particulate matter: sand, silt, and clay. right now it's relatively stable and compacted on the ocean floor. they're gonna scoop it up, and then dump it. once dumped, it doesnt sink to the bottom. it becauses suspended in the water column, where it will take months, even years, for it settle back out to its previous clarity, a clarity the coral needs to survive.
"And bear in mind that the GBR region already has any number of major rivers flowing into it which dump millions of tons of sediment into the area every year; sediment which, moreover, is full of agricultural chemicals and fertilizer" EEEHHH WRONG.
Coral, such as a coral reef is made of, such as the Great Barrier Reef, does not like sediment. It does not like suspended particulate matter. AND IT DOES NOT LIKE FETILIZER. It HATES nutrients. It's specifially evolved to exist in places that nutrient sparse. it essentially exists in the deserts of the ocean: wide open space, clean complicated clear water, and very little nutrients (fertilizer OR food).
one thing that helps coral to exist off shore are mangrove swamps. they are very closely linked. A mangrove swamp is one of the best known filters in the natural world, second only to water percolating slowly through rock undergound. it nearly captures the ENTIRE LOAD of sediment and fertilizer at a river's mouth. hence, NO, millions of tons of sediment DO NOT get dumped in the area every year. even so, the coral doesnt establish closer than several miles from shore, cause the load is still too high for it.
"When you see a picture of the GBR it's inevitably of high grade coral surrounded by brilliant aquatic fauna. What you don't see is that 99.99% of the region is not reef, it's just normal continental shelf, an area the size of Germany (as someone else said). The occasional dredging operation or ship hitting the bottom in the GBR region are near irrelevant."
EEEHHH WRONG. Know why it's so empty? Oh right, that ocean desert thing. That IN NO WAY means you can just dump in the areas that have no coral without consequence. It DOES and WILL affect it. This is not questioned. This is known oceanigraphic fact.
"They are just high profile trivialities for environmentalists to grasp and use to excite the general public."
High profile yes, trivial, no. and as opposed to your baseless and blatantly ignorant statements?
"The real threats to the GBR are global warming and farm runoff."
Holy crap you got one mostly right. The farm runoff damages mangrove stands, which reduces the filtering efficiency, and the nutrients and sediment that make it through fuel algrae growth and block sunlight harming the coral.
these are however not the only threats. and dumping the GBR is not helpful in anyway, it is at best (and highly unlikely) nuetral, and at worst (and very likely) very bad. there's also the risk of exposing toxic (to the coral, which is very sensitve) chemicals such as copper and arsenic to the water column, which will also harm the coral. coral takes a long time to grow and establish, but can be decimated very quickly.
It is imposible to overexagerate the animals of australia. In australia, NEARLY EVERYTHING is poisoinous. Poisoinous fish, poisoinous spiders, poisoinous insects/bugs, poisoinous snails, poisoinous jellyfish. I'm surprised the birds and mammals arent poisons to.
and then there's the snakes. OH THE SNAKES! (why'd it have to be snakes??) over 40 different varieties just of poisonous snakes, and 21 of the 25 most venomous snakes in the world live there.
Worlds largest and most vicious crocs, commonly ranging over 22ft long, AND known for jumping almost an entire body length out of the water: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Australian Box Jellyfish...giant, dangerous jellyfish that swarms every year...causes painful scars for life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
Irukandji jellyfish...tiny jellyfish (1inch bell) with really long tentacles (3+ feet), and nearly painless sting...that causes Irukandji syndrome, a rarely fatal condition that usually resolves after several hours, but before it does is essentially the most torturous experience a person can have: severe headache, backache, muscle pains, chest and abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting, sweating, anxiety, hypertension, tachycardia and pulmonary edema, and a "sense of impending doom so strong, that patients lose the will to live, and even beg their doctors to just kill them and get it over with): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... Inlaand Taipan, another cobra relative, again highly toxic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
-- Letterman: "Can you just go out and play? I mean it's dangerous in Australia." Worthington: "You're aware of the dangerous animals. We have dugites...which is like one of the most poisonous snakes in the world...and if it bites you, you have 10 seconds...You have redback spiders; same thing, if it bites you, you have 10 seconds." Letterman: "So what's a person to do?" Worthington: "Pray." -- Australia: Where everything wants us dead, and everything has the capability to make that a reality. -- http://www.cracked.com/funny-2... http://www.cracked.com/funny-5...
If it could be harmed by movement of earth on the bottom of the ocean, reef would not exist today. Ocean waters move far, far greater amounts of the stuff around every day.
Just how stupid are you? That's the environment it evolved in. It is by definition already suited to that. That in no way implies an ability to deal with an ADDITIONAL 3 million cubic meter of silt.
You are in fact using Bachmann logic: "increasing carbon dioxide isn't a problem. If we could be harmed by Carbon Dioxide, people would not exist today. There already exists in the air tons and tons of it, and we're fine."
wait...you actually have 3 broadband suppliers competing to provide service to the same house? or is it really just 3 suppliers each with their own monopolised, non-competitive, territory? the distinction is important.
And Google doing this is any different from any other company who demands and/or extracts concessions from the local municipality in exchange for opening a business there? Exemptions such as no taxes for the duration of its existence, exemptions to zoning laws, exemptions to local pollution standards, etc etc?
At least Google's concessions are largely unharmful to the local community, and the end result is actually fostering competition in an area that's normally a monopoly. Imagine that....local government fighting monopoly, by fostering competition.
After all...who does the government serve? The local monopolistic telco? Or the local citizens' public interest?
Also worth noting, they dont have 35+ years of experience working with stealth technology. The various stealth prototypes and demonstrators (Have Blue, Tacit Blue, Bird of Prey) had their share of problems too. Yet the production birds (B2, F117, and F22) have done their jobs well.
im not familiar with that case, but reading it, it really has nothing to do with the logic choice I presented. and dont assume too much about my own actual opinions.
i'm simply illustrating the point that generally given the choice its usually better to overclassify than underclassify. now you claim the law exists simply as a gotcha, and that's silly (the cynism i was referring to).
intentionally overclassifying should fall under the law. but its hard to prove: you cant really fault someone for being cautious, but you can for being malicious, but you have to prove malice. on the other hand, intentionally underclassifying can really only be malicious in nature, as it can only be harmful to the country's interests. point: its not that you cant criticize someone for overclassying, its that its hard to prove it was malicious in nature. when your job is security, its hard to fault you for being very secure. but when your job is security, its very easy to fault you for not being secure enough.
In a democracy, the public IS a higher authority than the government.
In a demcoracy the government is the public. Sometimes, citizens forget they are not separable...
govern by the consent of the governed.... governement of the people, by the people, and for the people.... government as an abstraction of the collective will of the public.... etc..etc..
Interchangable? No. Usually not. To say they are interchangable is to vastly oversimplify it. Should the Rosenburgs be seen as potential heros for giving nuclear secrets to Russia should Russia have won a hot or cold nuclear war? Should Benedict Arnold be seen as a hero for turning on his own nation to assist a repressive foreign power in attacking his nation?
Stop promoting the myth that these words are interchangable and depend only on the victor. That's completely wrong headed. The motivation of the individual matters for much.
I'd wager none. And there's really not anything wrong that.
Slashdot antiestablishment cynicism aside, when you're dealing with clssified documents and national security you have two choices which present a clear black/white decision: underclassify, which is clearly harmful and counterproductive, or overclassify, which while excessive and wastefu, normally doesnt directly harm national security. "better safe than sorry". "err on the side of caution".
unless those documents really were supposed to be classified, in which case retroactively correcting them is right and proper.
doesnt mean that then prosecuting him over it is then justified.
but reclassifying them in and of itself isnt automatically an act of corruption and injustice, unless is it done solely to "get" him, and the documents dont actually deserve classification.
You are free to start your own provider, and dig your own trench to the nearest CO.
Right, because I have a few billion dollars laying arund with which to challenge one of the largest companies in the world. And because I'm actually legally allowed to use the wires already in and leading to the house....oh wait, I'm not. And I'm not allowed to lay new ones. You know, there's a place where they have competition over telcos, and they did it by telling them they cant block competition from the wires. And they have both competition, better service, and better prices....through regulation. Imagine that.
You are free to be off the web, too, or use dial-up into another state.
The internet is so central to modern life that it is in fact essential. It enables Freedom of Speech and Association dramatically enhancing both basic rights and lowering the barrier to entry for both. It enhanced the economy by bringing even more far flung people into contact for mutal transactions, revolutionizing business, and again, lowering the barrier to entry. That's why it's now considered a basic human right. No, you cannot simply "not use it".
Free market doesn't prevent abusive monopolies
No it doesnt. In fact it encourages it. Any free market will naturally devolve to monopoly or oligopoly left to its own devices.
That's why telcom must be either regulated as a utility, or have EU style regulation to promote and force competition. And net neutrality too.
They can search anywhere within reach in the car. That basically means the entire passenger compartment. The trunk, not being "within reach" demands a higher level before they get to search it.
As long as the information you give (which constitutes testimony or confession) is not coerced, it's admissable. If it is however coerced, then it's not admissable.
So the question is "does the lie constitute coercion?"
In Fazier vs Cupp, "Your cousin already confessed", no. In Lynumn v. Illinois, "Financial aid for your infant children will be cut off, and your children taken from you, if you don't 'cooperate'", yes.
Intrinsic misrepresentations (usually not coercive) 1. Placement of the defendant's vehicle at the crime scene. 2. Physical evidence linked to the victim found in the defendant's car. 3. Discovery of the murder weapon. 4. A claim that the murder victim is still alive. 5. Presence of the defendant's fingerprints on the getaway car or at the crime scene. 6. Positive identification of the defendant by reliable witnesses. 7. Discovery of a nonexistent witness.
Extrinsic misrepresentations (more likely to be coercive) 1. Assurances of divine salvation upon confession. 2. Promises of mental health treatment in exchange for a confession. 3. Assurances of treatment in a "nice hospital" (in which the defendant could have his personal belongings and be visited by his girlfriend) in lieu of incarceration, in exchange for a confession. 4. Promises of more favorable treatment in the event of a confession. 5. Misrepresentations of legal principles, such as (a) suggesting that the defendant would have the burden of convincing a judge and jury at trial that he was "perfectly innocent" and had nothing to do with the offense, (b) misrepresenting the consequences of a "habitual offender" conviction, and (c) holding out that the defendant's confession cannot be used against him at trial. 6. Misrepresentations by an interrogating police officer, who is a close friend of the defendant, that the defendant's failure to confess will get the officer into trouble with his superiors and jeopardize the well-being of the officer's pregnant wife and children.
Now, to be fair, the decision hinges on the fact that he WILLINGLY went with the police, so legally, he was not detained. I think this is a dangerous grey area, and weaking of the 5th. But, it's not quite as simple as some people have been making it out.
That said, this decision only further reinforces that "dont talk to the cops" is too simplistic. Instead your nubmers should like this:
1: Ask "Am I being detained?" 2a: If "yes" then say "I wish to see a lawyer", and nothing else. 2b: If "no", then ask "Am I free to go?" 3a: If "yes" then walk away 3b: If "no" then you are being detained and you say "I wish to see a lawyer", and nothing else. 4: Volunteer no more information than required (check your local laws; some states require presentation of ID upon request, some don't). 5: Above all remain calm and respectful. Period. Failure to do so only hurts your situation and weakens your position; there is nothing to be gained from it.
Slashdot Mirror
They are moving sand, silt, clay, and other fine particulate matter from one part of the sea bed to another part of the sea, where it will become suspended in the water column, traveling far and wide across the sea for weeks, months, even years, before completely settling back out, and the clarity returns to normal levels the coral depends on to recieve the sunlight it needs to thrive.
Fixed that for you.
"not heavy dredging spoil which by definition does not"
EEEHHH WRONG. it's not heavy dredging spoil.
its fine particulate matter: sand, silt, and clay. right now it's relatively stable and compacted on the ocean floor. they're gonna scoop it up, and then dump it. once dumped, it doesnt sink to the bottom. it becauses suspended in the water column, where it will take months, even years, for it settle back out to its previous clarity, a clarity the coral needs to survive.
"And bear in mind that the GBR region already has any number of major rivers flowing into it which dump millions of tons of sediment into the area every year; sediment which, moreover, is full of agricultural chemicals and fertilizer"
EEEHHH WRONG.
Coral, such as a coral reef is made of, such as the Great Barrier Reef, does not like sediment. It does not like suspended particulate matter. AND IT DOES NOT LIKE FETILIZER. It HATES nutrients. It's specifially evolved to exist in places that nutrient sparse. it essentially exists in the deserts of the ocean: wide open space, clean complicated clear water, and very little nutrients (fertilizer OR food).
one thing that helps coral to exist off shore are mangrove swamps. they are very closely linked. A mangrove swamp is one of the best known filters in the natural world, second only to water percolating slowly through rock undergound. it nearly captures the ENTIRE LOAD of sediment and fertilizer at a river's mouth. hence, NO, millions of tons of sediment DO NOT get dumped in the area every year. even so, the coral doesnt establish closer than several miles from shore, cause the load is still too high for it.
"When you see a picture of the GBR it's inevitably of high grade coral surrounded by brilliant aquatic fauna. What you don't see is that 99.99% of the region is not reef, it's just normal continental shelf, an area the size of Germany (as someone else said). The occasional dredging operation or ship hitting the bottom in the GBR region are near irrelevant."
EEEHHH WRONG.
Know why it's so empty? Oh right, that ocean desert thing. That IN NO WAY means you can just dump in the areas that have no coral without consequence. It DOES and WILL affect it. This is not questioned. This is known oceanigraphic fact.
"They are just high profile trivialities for environmentalists to grasp and use to excite the general public."
High profile yes, trivial, no. and as opposed to your baseless and blatantly ignorant statements?
"The real threats to the GBR are global warming and farm runoff."
Holy crap you got one mostly right. The farm runoff damages mangrove stands, which reduces the filtering efficiency, and the nutrients and sediment that make it through fuel algrae growth and block sunlight harming the coral.
these are however not the only threats.
and dumping the GBR is not helpful in anyway, it is at best (and highly unlikely) nuetral, and at worst (and very likely) very bad. there's also the risk of exposing toxic (to the coral, which is very sensitve) chemicals such as copper and arsenic to the water column, which will also harm the coral. coral takes a long time to grow and establish, but can be decimated very quickly.
somehow i totally forgot the cassowary.....big giant bird with a big giant claw that's highly (homicidally) territorial...
No.
No.
No.
It is imposible to overexagerate the animals of australia. In australia, NEARLY EVERYTHING is poisoinous. Poisoinous fish, poisoinous spiders, poisoinous insects/bugs, poisoinous snails, poisoinous jellyfish. I'm surprised the birds and mammals arent poisons to.
and then there's the snakes. OH THE SNAKES! (why'd it have to be snakes??) over 40 different varieties just of poisonous snakes, and 21 of the 25 most venomous snakes in the world live there.
Spiders with 1 inch fangs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
Worlds largest and most vicious crocs, commonly ranging over 22ft long, AND known for jumping almost an entire body length out of the water: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Red back spiders (basically, black widow's australian cousin): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
Dugite snakes (cobra family), one of the most potent toxins in an animal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
Blue Ringed Octopus, the most toxic animal in the world, and a nearly painless sting (oh fun): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
Australian Box Jellyfish...giant, dangerous jellyfish that swarms every year...causes painful scars for life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
Irukandji jellyfish...tiny jellyfish (1inch bell) with really long tentacles (3+ feet), and nearly painless sting...that causes Irukandji syndrome, a rarely fatal condition that usually resolves after several hours, but before it does is essentially the most torturous experience a person can have: severe headache, backache, muscle pains, chest and abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting, sweating, anxiety, hypertension, tachycardia and pulmonary edema, and a "sense of impending doom so strong, that patients lose the will to live, and even beg their doctors to just kill them and get it over with): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
Inlaand Taipan, another cobra relative, again highly toxic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
Australian paralysis tick...yes EVEN THE TICKS ARE POISONOUS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
--
Letterman: "Can you just go out and play?
I mean it's dangerous in Australia."
Worthington: "You're aware of the dangerous animals. We have dugites...which is like one of the most poisonous snakes in the world...and if it bites you, you have 10 seconds...You have redback spiders; same thing, if it bites you, you have 10 seconds."
Letterman: "So what's a person to do?"
Worthington: "Pray."
--
Australia: Where everything wants us dead, and everything has the capability to make that a reality.
--
http://www.cracked.com/funny-2...
http://www.cracked.com/funny-5...
Who keeps modding this uninformed stupidity "insightful" ??
If it could be harmed by movement of earth on the bottom of the ocean, reef would not exist today. Ocean waters move far, far greater amounts of the stuff around every day.
Just how stupid are you? That's the environment it evolved in. It is by definition already suited to that.
That in no way implies an ability to deal with an ADDITIONAL 3 million cubic meter of silt.
You are in fact using Bachmann logic: "increasing carbon dioxide isn't a problem. If we could be harmed by Carbon Dioxide, people would not exist today. There already exists in the air tons and tons of it, and we're fine."
you have no clue what you are talking about
A "public option" for broadband. I like it.
mod up
wait...you actually have 3 broadband suppliers competing to provide service to the same house?
or is it really just 3 suppliers each with their own monopolised, non-competitive, territory?
the distinction is important.
And Google doing this is any different from any other company who demands and/or extracts concessions from the local municipality in exchange for opening a business there? Exemptions such as no taxes for the duration of its existence, exemptions to zoning laws, exemptions to local pollution standards, etc etc?
At least Google's concessions are largely unharmful to the local community, and the end result is actually fostering competition in an area that's normally a monopoly. Imagine that....local government fighting monopoly, by fostering competition.
After all...who does the government serve? The local monopolistic telco? Or the local citizens' public interest?
let's not ignore paypal here.
sounds like a lawsuit against them is in order here.
and does that in any way diminish the veracity of the question? /. ?
or does it instead indicate a systemic flaw with
This piece of "outrage journalism" was "news" two weeks ago. /. regurgitating it? And why after waiting two weeks?
Why is
Also worth noting, they dont have 35+ years of experience working with stealth technology.
The various stealth prototypes and demonstrators (Have Blue, Tacit Blue, Bird of Prey) had their share of problems too.
Yet the production birds (B2, F117, and F22) have done their jobs well.
im not familiar with that case, but reading it, it really has nothing to do with the logic choice I presented.
and dont assume too much about my own actual opinions.
i'm simply illustrating the point that generally given the choice its usually better to overclassify than underclassify.
now you claim the law exists simply as a gotcha, and that's silly (the cynism i was referring to).
intentionally overclassifying should fall under the law. but its hard to prove: you cant really fault someone for being cautious, but you can for being malicious, but you have to prove malice. on the other hand, intentionally underclassifying can really only be malicious in nature, as it can only be harmful to the country's interests. point: its not that you cant criticize someone for overclassying, its that its hard to prove it was malicious in nature. when your job is security, its hard to fault you for being very secure. but when your job is security, its very easy to fault you for not being secure enough.
In a democracy, the public IS a higher authority than the government.
In a demcoracy the government is the public. Sometimes, citizens forget they are not separable...
govern by the consent of the governed....
governement of the people, by the people, and for the people....
government as an abstraction of the collective will of the public....
etc..etc..
Interchangable? No. Usually not. To say they are interchangable is to vastly oversimplify it.
Should the Rosenburgs be seen as potential heros for giving nuclear secrets to Russia should Russia have won a hot or cold nuclear war?
Should Benedict Arnold be seen as a hero for turning on his own nation to assist a repressive foreign power in attacking his nation?
Stop promoting the myth that these words are interchangable and depend only on the victor. That's completely wrong headed.
The motivation of the individual matters for much.
Popular myth aside, he never di any such thing.
I'd wager none. And there's really not anything wrong that.
Slashdot antiestablishment cynicism aside, when you're dealing with clssified documents and national security you have two choices which present a clear black/white decision: underclassify, which is clearly harmful and counterproductive, or overclassify, which while excessive and wastefu, normally doesnt directly harm national security. "better safe than sorry". "err on the side of caution".
unless those documents really were supposed to be classified, in which case retroactively correcting them is right and proper.
doesnt mean that then prosecuting him over it is then justified.
but reclassifying them in and of itself isnt automatically an act of corruption and injustice, unless is it done solely to "get" him, and the documents dont actually deserve classification.
You are free to start your own provider, and dig your own trench to the nearest CO.
Right, because I have a few billion dollars laying arund with which to challenge one of the largest companies in the world.
And because I'm actually legally allowed to use the wires already in and leading to the house....oh wait, I'm not. And I'm not allowed to lay new ones.
You know, there's a place where they have competition over telcos, and they did it by telling them they cant block competition from the wires. And they have both competition, better service, and better prices....through regulation. Imagine that.
You are free to be off the web, too, or use dial-up into another state.
The internet is so central to modern life that it is in fact essential. It enables Freedom of Speech and Association dramatically enhancing both basic rights and lowering the barrier to entry for both. It enhanced the economy by bringing even more far flung people into contact for mutal transactions, revolutionizing business, and again, lowering the barrier to entry. That's why it's now considered a basic human right. No, you cannot simply "not use it".
Free market doesn't prevent abusive monopolies
No it doesnt. In fact it encourages it.
Any free market will naturally devolve to monopoly or oligopoly left to its own devices.
That's why telcom must be either regulated as a utility, or have EU style regulation to promote and force competition.
And net neutrality too.
They can search anywhere within reach in the car. That basically means the entire passenger compartment.
The trunk, not being "within reach" demands a higher level before they get to search it.
start reading here: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1...
No.
At best, half-true.
As long as the information you give (which constitutes testimony or confession) is not coerced, it's admissable.
If it is however coerced, then it's not admissable.
So the question is "does the lie constitute coercion?"
In Fazier vs Cupp, "Your cousin already confessed", no.
In Lynumn v. Illinois, "Financial aid for your infant children will be cut off, and your children taken from you, if you don't 'cooperate'", yes.
Intrinsic misrepresentations (usually not coercive)
1. Placement of the defendant's vehicle at the crime scene.
2. Physical evidence linked to the victim found in the defendant's car.
3. Discovery of the murder weapon.
4. A claim that the murder victim is still alive.
5. Presence of the defendant's fingerprints on the getaway car or at the crime scene.
6. Positive identification of the defendant by reliable witnesses.
7. Discovery of a nonexistent witness.
Extrinsic misrepresentations (more likely to be coercive)
1. Assurances of divine salvation upon confession.
2. Promises of mental health treatment in exchange for a confession.
3. Assurances of treatment in a "nice hospital" (in which the defendant could have his personal belongings and be visited by his girlfriend) in lieu of incarceration, in exchange for a confession.
4. Promises of more favorable treatment in the event of a confession.
5. Misrepresentations of legal principles, such as (a) suggesting that the defendant would have the burden of convincing a judge and jury at trial that he was "perfectly innocent" and had nothing to do with the offense, (b) misrepresenting the consequences of a "habitual offender" conviction, and (c) holding out that the defendant's confession cannot be used against him at trial.
6. Misrepresentations by an interrogating police officer, who is a close friend of the defendant, that the defendant's failure to confess will get the officer into trouble with his superiors and jeopardize the well-being of the officer's pregnant wife and children.
(credits to Straightdope: http://www.straightdope.com/co... )
"Always work"
Tell that to Salinas.
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
Now, to be fair, the decision hinges on the fact that he WILLINGLY went with the police, so legally, he was not detained.
I think this is a dangerous grey area, and weaking of the 5th. But, it's not quite as simple as some people have been making it out.
That said, this decision only further reinforces that "dont talk to the cops" is too simplistic.
Instead your nubmers should like this:
1: Ask "Am I being detained?"
2a: If "yes" then say "I wish to see a lawyer", and nothing else.
2b: If "no", then ask "Am I free to go?"
3a: If "yes" then walk away
3b: If "no" then you are being detained and you say "I wish to see a lawyer", and nothing else.
4: Volunteer no more information than required (check your local laws; some states require presentation of ID upon request, some don't).
5: Above all remain calm and respectful. Period. Failure to do so only hurts your situation and weakens your position; there is nothing to be gained from it.