Not to get into one side or the other of this debate, but when I see something like that statement I have to point out that the Titanic was unsinkable. Never speak in absolutes. While the reactors of today may be safer than Chernobyl, they are products of fallible people and subject to failure themselves.
I think you mis-read that bill a little. Apparently, Rep. King wants to set aside spectrum in the 700 MHz range for Public Service emergency use. To make up for the loss of income from auctioning that spectrum, the spectrum in use by HAMs in the 400 MHz range would be auctioned off to commercial interests. So, we set aside some spectrum for first responders, but then sell spectrum already allocated to HAMs for commercial use. We are not taking the spectrum used by HAMs and giving that to the first responders - we are giving it instead to commercial interests.
Somehow, I smell a campaign contribution in all of this...
Charter flights. Look them up. I am so tired of telling people here that yes, if you ride a common carrier, you do have to do what the government requires of a common carrier to use the airspace, but charter flights that are not open to the general public have no TSA inspection requirement.
The TSA searches are not required of you, they are required of the airline and the airline makes your consent to such a condition of getting on their plane. You may be too young to remember, but there was a time when these searches were conducted by private security firms or airport security independent of the federal government. It was the failure of such on 9/11 that led to the TSA. Do you remember the big stink that was raised when it was proposed to turn the screening back over to private contractors and get the TSA out of doing the pat downs?
you sure are a cunt. a dirty, nasty, AIDS and herpes-infested cunt with giant meat curtains, a clit like a penis, and a gaping cavern of a vagina. go fuck yourself because no one else is going to.
I think you're wrong about that. My ex-wife doesn't frequent Slashdot.
If a friend of mine offers me a ride in his car, but tells me that first I have to give him five bucks for gas money before he will do so, do I really have the right to insist that he give me a ride even if I do not honor his terms? Can I take him to court for depriving me of my right to travel in his car? A right cannot be abrogated by a contract, so if I really have a right to ride in a car, he would HAVE to give me that ride. The same with a plane - if the airline makes my use of their airplane conditional upon my being screened by the TSA, then as a condition of that contract I have to consent to the search. For that purpose, it is immaterial that the government is the one requiring the airline to ask that of me - it is a condition of that airline being a common carrier. As I have pointed out, affinity or private charters do NOT require TSA screening because they are not common carriers.
So there is no right for you to travel on anyone else's conveyance, be that an airplane or a horse and buggy. And if I want to ride on a plane or bus or skateboard that belongs to someone else, I have to agree to their terms.
The original post I made asked how a TSA full body pat down was any different from the technology described in TFA. In my eyes, both are as invasive. The poster I responded to said that DHS employees should not be doing these kinds of searches because the fourth amendment prohibits them from doing so ("...the 4th amendment is supposed to prevent DHS employees from doing these searches."). I wanted to point out to him that you waived that right when you agreed to the terms of your ticket. There is no violation if you consent to the search, just as if the police show up at your door without a warrant and ask if they can search your house. If you give your permission to an open-ended search, then they can. In either case, you do not have to consent to that search. If you refuse the police, they go away and maybe try to get a warrant from a sympathetic judge. If you refuse to consent to the TSA searching your person and your baggage, you don't get to use your ticket. You do have a right to travel; that can be inferred not only from the Ninth Amendment, but also from the Right of Free Assembly. But you cannot force someone to convey you in their vehicle if you do not abide by the contract you entered into with them when you bought your ticket.
Are you saying then that I cannot be arrested for driving a car without a license? It is, after all, my right to drive a car. If I have a right to drive on a public road, why does the state even test me or require me to pay for the privilege of a license? Or to fly a plane? Or build a nuclear power plant on my land (I am, after all, conveniently on a canal...)? Heck, maybe I even want to run a business out of my house, or open a restaurant in that old building I own. Or maybe I want to hold a really loud party at three o'clock in the morning. Nothing in the Constitution says explicitly that I cannot do so.
Do not confuse the rights of an individual to do and think as he pleases with and within his own private property with the right to use the commons that we all own. We all agree to abide by the rules we have devised for the individual use of the commons. If you want, you can say we subsume our rights for the greater good, but the fact remains that I cannot drive on a public road without a license from the state. Rights do not require a license.
So if I start an airline which doesn't "request" any assistance from the TSA then you would have no problem with it?
They exist. They are called single entity or affinity charter airlines and I use them frequently. No TSA pat downs, no baggage search. If the flight does go overseas, then of course you have to follow customs procedures, but there is no law requiring TSA compliance for charter flights where the seats are not offered to the general public.
Also keep in mind that although planes and buses are generally privately owned, trains are not and neither are the airports, bus terminals (generally), train stations, and subway stations where the unconstitutional searches are actually taking place.
I'm sure that comes as a surprise to every non-Amtrak train and railway station and every private airport authority. Let's not overgeneralize here. Even with Amtrak, it is a private-public partnership that sells me a ticket with certain terms and requirements. If I don't agree to those, I don't have to ride the train.
It has nothing to do with property rights of the owners of buses, trains, ferries, and aircraft and everything to do with the government depriving us of our basic human right to travel about freely.
Oh, yes it does. When is the last time that the TSA patted you down before getting in your own plane or car? How has that interfered with your "basic human right to travel about freely"?
And note that if your reasoning were in fact sound the same argument could be applied toward leaving your house. After all you don't own the roads. The government does.
And exactly who is the government? If you want a hint, read the first line of the Constitution. Or, as the bumper sticker says, as a matter of fact, I do own the road. The roads and parks and government buildings are part of what we as citizens hold in common. They are ours to use and those that are in government only administer and regulate our use of them. I do not have to consent to a search on a public street. A policeman may arrest me for that, but it will be a matter for a court to determine if I was refusing an unreasonable search. When I exit the commons and enter someone else's private property I do so at their pleasure.
If I am on the street, a policeman cannot take my gun away from me without reason, but the driver of a privately owned bus can kick me off for carrying a gun on board in violation of the terms under which I was allowed on the bus. I do not have a right to be on someone else's bus.
So if you want to use them you may have to consent to their terms which may include your 12 year old daughter getting fisted first or at least having some naked photos taken of her etc.
Let's stick on topic here and not delve into the dark corners of your fantasies.
That's not a right to drive per se. It is your right to use your private property as you see fit. If you want to use that private property on some element of the commons, such as State Game Lands or a public road, then the state can grant you a license to use them, but it does not HAVE to.
The state can deny me a license to drive because I do not have a right guaranteed in the Constitution to operate a motor vehicle. By the same token, they cannot deny me my right to buy a gun and even carry it on public lands, or to gather with my friends and hold a political protest. I find permits for either of the above to be a much greater and less talked about threat to our freedoms than telling Southwest it's OK to have someone search me for a bomb before getting on their plane.
Yes, you did. You gave it to the operators of the airplane. If I want to fly (or charter, depending on the charter company) my own plane, I do not have to have the TSA search me before I fly. But if I want to fly on Southwestern, I have to let the TSA search me because that is what I have agreed to. So I do have a choice and my rights have not been grabbed from me by the government, I just consented to the search when I asked Southwest if I could use one of their planes.
I never said anywhere that the government confers our rights. I said that it is not a right to sit in an airplane seat. It is my right to refuse to be searched and the TSA can not do anything about that, but the airline can then decide that they do not want me on their plane. Their right to use their private property as they see fit is not in any conflict with my right to refuse to be searched for no reasonable cause.
I firmly believe that the TSA has no authority to search me at any time, but the airline has every right to impose terms on my use of their property. If they require that I consent to a search by the TSA, then so be it. I will have to do that or get off the plane.
Interesting. Just what are your privacy rights in regard to corporate email or the use of your desk phone at work? What about your company cell phone? Hate to break this to you, but there is no reasonable expectation of privacy there. Not even in the locker you are given to use for the storage of personal items at work. If the police come in and ask the company you work for to turn over your email or open up your locker, the company can do so without having to have your permission.
IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRING YOU TO BE SEARCHED. It is the airline saying that if you want to fly on our plane, you have to consent the government (or some private security company we hired) searching you. If you don't consent to the search, you cannot get on the plane. And I will point out that the government has already told me that I must wear a seat belt and that my children must be in child safety seats IF I want to drive. And my children have to wear a helmet when riding a bike... do not confuse a person's right to be secure in their person, safe from an unreasonable search, with a right to go anywhere and do anything without restriction from the owners of those places you frequent.
The fact is there is no clear line that can be drawn where 4th amendment violations are acceptable and where they are not.
If the government is not the one requiring the search, then there is no violation. You consent to that search when you want to get on someone else's property.
The moment you step into any private place and agree to the terms that the owner requires of you for staying there, you give up those rights. The Constitution expressly forbids the Government from conducting an unreasonable search of you or your houses, papers, and effects but the owner of that plane, bus or train can set any terms they want for your use of such. You have to agree to those terms or they can refuse to grant you entry to the stadium or the train. If one of those terms is that you will consent to the TSA scanning you, then the TSA has your permission to do so - it is what you agreed to when you bought that ticket. Don't ride the train or fly or ride in a bus if you don't want to abide by those terms. Don't enter the stadium if you don't want them to inspect your cooler or your clothes. Note that the TSA cannot search you just for leaving your house and walking on the street, at least not yet.
And I have to congratulate you on the "people like you" crack. Want to tell me who I am, because I can tell who you are...
I was trying to point out that you do not have a right to fly, much like you do not have a right to drive. When you purchase your ticket, you entered into an agreement with the carrier that you will abide by their requirements. One of these is that you will have to be cleared by whatever security measures they think are appropriate. So, even though it is the Government (in this case the TSA) screening you, it does not violate your fourth amendment rights because you already waived those when you bought your ticket and agreed to the terms, much like you give up your right to be secure in your papers when crossing a border.
If you do not want to be searched in such an invasive manner, don't fly.
Extremists - any sort of extremists - don't care. They're going to heaven anyway, no matter what they do, and everyone else is going to hell. This is why Christian extremists violate the golden rule and Muslim extremists frequent strip clubs and consume alcohol. They believe they already are on the bullet train to Paradise, so it won't matter if they eat some pork.
The faithful that obey every stricture and commandment are the same ones that obey "You shall not kill."
I do run my own computer business, with actual invoices and such, but I do not charge my friends for my services. Instead, we trade - a home-made dinner for getting rid of Anti Virus Studio 2010 and installing Avast, help painting my living room in exchange for setting up their wireless network, a bath and grooming for my dog after installing a new hard drive - nothing that costs me or them actual money, but we trade something of value.
So it should be with the cute girl. Never do something for nothing and always, always schedule a time - just don't drop everything to rush over and help unless it is a genuine emergency. I always leave a couple of business cards with people so they can refer me easily. Make sure that people realize your time is valuable, but that you can help them. That's the way I've operated for fifteen years and the number of referrals I've gotten from helping friends has me happily busy.
Word of mouth is the best advertising you can have, no matter if that is in business or in your personal life. You just have to work as hard to earn it as the dollars you would charge. And whether it is business or personal, YOU have to believe that what you offer is worth something.
The important thing here is not what that girl thinks of you for helping, but what she tells her friends about you. Having a woman tell other woman what a nice, helpful man you are will get you way more attention in the long run. Having a reputation as a good guy that is discreet will score way more points than a jerk that likes to brag.
...is filing a few billion John Doe lawsuits against "Any and all current or potential occupants of said potentially planetary bodies..." for sharing an orbit.
Slashdot Mirror
Chernobyl is a literal impossibility
Not to get into one side or the other of this debate, but when I see something like that statement I have to point out that the Titanic was unsinkable. Never speak in absolutes. While the reactors of today may be safer than Chernobyl, they are products of fallible people and subject to failure themselves.
Maybe they shoulda used naked pictures of Mickey instead?
You got me thinking on that. I'd mod you informative if I hadn't commented, but let's see. The proposed change...
Lacks common sense? Check.
Costly to implement? Check.
Is not technically sound and violates established procedure? Check.
Sounds like most things that happen when a Congressman tackles a technical subject.
Now, I have to go back to fixing my Internet Tubes
I think you mis-read that bill a little. Apparently, Rep. King wants to set aside spectrum in the 700 MHz range for Public Service emergency use. To make up for the loss of income from auctioning that spectrum, the spectrum in use by HAMs in the 400 MHz range would be auctioned off to commercial interests. So, we set aside some spectrum for first responders, but then sell spectrum already allocated to HAMs for commercial use. We are not taking the spectrum used by HAMs and giving that to the first responders - we are giving it instead to commercial interests.
Somehow, I smell a campaign contribution in all of this...
Maybe not Uranus, but after eating Taco Bell last night my anus qualifies...
I hear they're working on extracting fibrous cellulose from trees that, when dried, you can create images on using nothing more than a graphite stick.
This reminds me of an old saying:
What is the difference between theory and reality? In theory, there is none.
I wonder how long, given all the effort and time that is being put into more and more accurate simulations, that the above will remain a truism?
Charter flights. Look them up. I am so tired of telling people here that yes, if you ride a common carrier, you do have to do what the government requires of a common carrier to use the airspace, but charter flights that are not open to the general public have no TSA inspection requirement.
The TSA searches are not required of you, they are required of the airline and the airline makes your consent to such a condition of getting on their plane. You may be too young to remember, but there was a time when these searches were conducted by private security firms or airport security independent of the federal government. It was the failure of such on 9/11 that led to the TSA. Do you remember the big stink that was raised when it was proposed to turn the screening back over to private contractors and get the TSA out of doing the pat downs?
Here are some airports considering doing so now:
TSA to Private Contractors
Of course, the TSA doesn't want that to happen:
TSA Opposes Private Screening
Even if the locals want to:
Orlando Airport
Also realize that there was ALWAYS a provision in the act that established the TSA to allow airports to opt out and use their own screeners.
So, why exactly do you have to allow the TSA to do this if there is a way for airports and airlines to opt out and hire their own private contractors?
I was thinking more along the lines of "BUELLER!!!!"
you sure are a cunt. a dirty, nasty, AIDS and herpes-infested cunt with giant meat curtains, a clit like a penis, and a gaping cavern of a vagina. go fuck yourself because no one else is going to.
I think you're wrong about that. My ex-wife doesn't frequent Slashdot.
If a friend of mine offers me a ride in his car, but tells me that first I have to give him five bucks for gas money before he will do so, do I really have the right to insist that he give me a ride even if I do not honor his terms? Can I take him to court for depriving me of my right to travel in his car? A right cannot be abrogated by a contract, so if I really have a right to ride in a car, he would HAVE to give me that ride. The same with a plane - if the airline makes my use of their airplane conditional upon my being screened by the TSA, then as a condition of that contract I have to consent to the search. For that purpose, it is immaterial that the government is the one requiring the airline to ask that of me - it is a condition of that airline being a common carrier. As I have pointed out, affinity or private charters do NOT require TSA screening because they are not common carriers.
So there is no right for you to travel on anyone else's conveyance, be that an airplane or a horse and buggy. And if I want to ride on a plane or bus or skateboard that belongs to someone else, I have to agree to their terms.
The original post I made asked how a TSA full body pat down was any different from the technology described in TFA. In my eyes, both are as invasive. The poster I responded to said that DHS employees should not be doing these kinds of searches because the fourth amendment prohibits them from doing so ("...the 4th amendment is supposed to prevent DHS employees from doing these searches."). I wanted to point out to him that you waived that right when you agreed to the terms of your ticket. There is no violation if you consent to the search, just as if the police show up at your door without a warrant and ask if they can search your house. If you give your permission to an open-ended search, then they can. In either case, you do not have to consent to that search. If you refuse the police, they go away and maybe try to get a warrant from a sympathetic judge. If you refuse to consent to the TSA searching your person and your baggage, you don't get to use your ticket. You do have a right to travel; that can be inferred not only from the Ninth Amendment, but also from the Right of Free Assembly. But you cannot force someone to convey you in their vehicle if you do not abide by the contract you entered into with them when you bought your ticket.
Are you saying then that I cannot be arrested for driving a car without a license? It is, after all, my right to drive a car. If I have a right to drive on a public road, why does the state even test me or require me to pay for the privilege of a license? Or to fly a plane? Or build a nuclear power plant on my land (I am, after all, conveniently on a canal...)? Heck, maybe I even want to run a business out of my house, or open a restaurant in that old building I own. Or maybe I want to hold a really loud party at three o'clock in the morning. Nothing in the Constitution says explicitly that I cannot do so.
Do not confuse the rights of an individual to do and think as he pleases with and within his own private property with the right to use the commons that we all own. We all agree to abide by the rules we have devised for the individual use of the commons. If you want, you can say we subsume our rights for the greater good, but the fact remains that I cannot drive on a public road without a license from the state. Rights do not require a license.
So if I start an airline which doesn't "request" any assistance from the TSA then you would have no problem with it?
They exist. They are called single entity or affinity charter airlines and I use them frequently. No TSA pat downs, no baggage search. If the flight does go overseas, then of course you have to follow customs procedures, but there is no law requiring TSA compliance for charter flights where the seats are not offered to the general public.
Also keep in mind that although planes and buses are generally privately owned, trains are not and neither are the airports, bus terminals (generally), train stations, and subway stations where the unconstitutional searches are actually taking place.
I'm sure that comes as a surprise to every non-Amtrak train and railway station and every private airport authority. Let's not overgeneralize here. Even with Amtrak, it is a private-public partnership that sells me a ticket with certain terms and requirements. If I don't agree to those, I don't have to ride the train.
It has nothing to do with property rights of the owners of buses, trains, ferries, and aircraft and everything to do with the government depriving us of our basic human right to travel about freely.
Oh, yes it does. When is the last time that the TSA patted you down before getting in your own plane or car? How has that interfered with your "basic human right to travel about freely"?
And note that if your reasoning were in fact sound the same argument could be applied toward leaving your house. After all you don't own the roads. The government does.
And exactly who is the government? If you want a hint, read the first line of the Constitution. Or, as the bumper sticker says, as a matter of fact, I do own the road. The roads and parks and government buildings are part of what we as citizens hold in common. They are ours to use and those that are in government only administer and regulate our use of them. I do not have to consent to a search on a public street. A policeman may arrest me for that, but it will be a matter for a court to determine if I was refusing an unreasonable search. When I exit the commons and enter someone else's private property I do so at their pleasure.
If I am on the street, a policeman cannot take my gun away from me without reason, but the driver of a privately owned bus can kick me off for carrying a gun on board in violation of the terms under which I was allowed on the bus. I do not have a right to be on someone else's bus.
So if you want to use them you may have to consent to their terms which may include your 12 year old daughter getting fisted first or at least having some naked photos taken of her etc.
Let's stick on topic here and not delve into the dark corners of your fantasies.
That's not a right to drive per se. It is your right to use your private property as you see fit. If you want to use that private property on some element of the commons, such as State Game Lands or a public road, then the state can grant you a license to use them, but it does not HAVE to.
The state can deny me a license to drive because I do not have a right guaranteed in the Constitution to operate a motor vehicle. By the same token, they cannot deny me my right to buy a gun and even carry it on public lands, or to gather with my friends and hold a political protest. I find permits for either of the above to be a much greater and less talked about threat to our freedoms than telling Southwest it's OK to have someone search me for a bomb before getting on their plane.
You don't just "give up" your rights.
Yes, you did. You gave it to the operators of the airplane. If I want to fly (or charter, depending on the charter company) my own plane, I do not have to have the TSA search me before I fly. But if I want to fly on Southwestern, I have to let the TSA search me because that is what I have agreed to. So I do have a choice and my rights have not been grabbed from me by the government, I just consented to the search when I asked Southwest if I could use one of their planes.
I never said anywhere that the government confers our rights. I said that it is not a right to sit in an airplane seat. It is my right to refuse to be searched and the TSA can not do anything about that, but the airline can then decide that they do not want me on their plane. Their right to use their private property as they see fit is not in any conflict with my right to refuse to be searched for no reasonable cause.
I firmly believe that the TSA has no authority to search me at any time, but the airline has every right to impose terms on my use of their property. If they require that I consent to a search by the TSA, then so be it. I will have to do that or get off the plane.
Interesting. Just what are your privacy rights in regard to corporate email or the use of your desk phone at work? What about your company cell phone? Hate to break this to you, but there is no reasonable expectation of privacy there. Not even in the locker you are given to use for the storage of personal items at work. If the police come in and ask the company you work for to turn over your email or open up your locker, the company can do so without having to have your permission.
IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRING YOU TO BE SEARCHED. It is the airline saying that if you want to fly on our plane, you have to consent the government (or some private security company we hired) searching you. If you don't consent to the search, you cannot get on the plane. And I will point out that the government has already told me that I must wear a seat belt and that my children must be in child safety seats IF I want to drive. And my children have to wear a helmet when riding a bike... do not confuse a person's right to be secure in their person, safe from an unreasonable search, with a right to go anywhere and do anything without restriction from the owners of those places you frequent.
The fact is there is no clear line that can be drawn where 4th amendment violations are acceptable and where they are not.
If the government is not the one requiring the search, then there is no violation. You consent to that search when you want to get on someone else's property.
The moment you step into any private place and agree to the terms that the owner requires of you for staying there, you give up those rights. The Constitution expressly forbids the Government from conducting an unreasonable search of you or your houses, papers, and effects but the owner of that plane, bus or train can set any terms they want for your use of such. You have to agree to those terms or they can refuse to grant you entry to the stadium or the train. If one of those terms is that you will consent to the TSA scanning you, then the TSA has your permission to do so - it is what you agreed to when you bought that ticket. Don't ride the train or fly or ride in a bus if you don't want to abide by those terms. Don't enter the stadium if you don't want them to inspect your cooler or your clothes. Note that the TSA cannot search you just for leaving your house and walking on the street, at least not yet.
And I have to congratulate you on the "people like you" crack. Want to tell me who I am, because I can tell who you are...
Perhaps I should have made more of a distinction.
I was trying to point out that you do not have a right to fly, much like you do not have a right to drive. When you purchase your ticket, you entered into an agreement with the carrier that you will abide by their requirements. One of these is that you will have to be cleared by whatever security measures they think are appropriate. So, even though it is the Government (in this case the TSA) screening you, it does not violate your fourth amendment rights because you already waived those when you bought your ticket and agreed to the terms, much like you give up your right to be secure in your papers when crossing a border.
If you do not want to be searched in such an invasive manner, don't fly.
How is a full body pat down any different from this? You gave up your right to privacy when you chose to fly. Otherwise, seizing and inspecting the laptops of traveling US Citizens would not be legal.
Extremists - any sort of extremists - don't care. They're going to heaven anyway, no matter what they do, and everyone else is going to hell. This is why Christian extremists violate the golden rule and Muslim extremists frequent strip clubs and consume alcohol. They believe they already are on the bullet train to Paradise, so it won't matter if they eat some pork.
The faithful that obey every stricture and commandment are the same ones that obey "You shall not kill."
Don't be a carpet mat then.
I do run my own computer business, with actual invoices and such, but I do not charge my friends for my services. Instead, we trade - a home-made dinner for getting rid of Anti Virus Studio 2010 and installing Avast, help painting my living room in exchange for setting up their wireless network, a bath and grooming for my dog after installing a new hard drive - nothing that costs me or them actual money, but we trade something of value.
So it should be with the cute girl. Never do something for nothing and always, always schedule a time - just don't drop everything to rush over and help unless it is a genuine emergency. I always leave a couple of business cards with people so they can refer me easily. Make sure that people realize your time is valuable, but that you can help them. That's the way I've operated for fifteen years and the number of referrals I've gotten from helping friends has me happily busy.
Word of mouth is the best advertising you can have, no matter if that is in business or in your personal life. You just have to work as hard to earn it as the dollars you would charge. And whether it is business or personal, YOU have to believe that what you offer is worth something.
The important thing here is not what that girl thinks of you for helping, but what she tells her friends about you. Having a woman tell other woman what a nice, helpful man you are will get you way more attention in the long run. Having a reputation as a good guy that is discreet will score way more points than a jerk that likes to brag.
I could care less, Creg. Now excuse me while I go eat my breakfast burrito...
...is filing a few billion John Doe lawsuits against "Any and all current or potential occupants of said potentially planetary bodies..." for sharing an orbit.
Sharing is bad