"we can't have that, now, citizen! be a good little sheep, agree to the Shiney(tm) we give you and stop questioning what our end goals are."
hey, if you are too dumb to realize you are being played, maybe you deserve to be played. come back in a few years and tell us how good it was for you to surrender your buying habits to google or some other behemoth.
I use cash whenever possible. Most people I find don't understand the value of using cash. But I think they'll miss it when it's gone.
There is an extra annoyance factor of having something (or this guy) IN YOUR FACE though. Would you say that a fly buzzing around across the street is just as annoying as a fly buzzing around your face?
What if the guy stood in the corner of the cafe, filming everyone? Would that be okay, or would people still find that creepy? I think they would find it creepy, even though their personal space was not being violated. The difference is one of perception. You notice the guy, but don't notice the camera. I think this guy makes a good point.
One wrong move and this creepy cameraman may end up with harassment charges.
A prosecutor and possibly a judge may argue that his actions differ from security cameras in the sense that a security camera is fixed in place and watches a predefined area to spot crimes and identify perpetrators. In this case, he is very mobile and instead of filming a predefined area, he films individual people. He walks up to a single person and videotapes them with the intent of aggravating them about being videotaped.
What if he backed up a few feet to get a wider angle? Would that make it okay? I agree that he is filming them with the intent of aggravating them. But I think he is also making a good point. The reason they get aggravated is that it is apparent that he is filming them. But the security cameras are inconspicuous and easy to ignore. So the difference really is in the subject's perception.
If it was legal the price would drop significantly because the risk in dealing would be removed, and it probably wouldn't be the biggest cash crop anymore.
The thing is, dogs are eager to please. You dont even have to try to train them to alert whenever their handler is suspicious - they do that naturally. So the way this works is, the cop's 'gut' isnt sufficient to get a warrant, he needs some evidence not just a hunch. So he just gets the dog, who naturally picks up on the handlers state of mind and will alert as a result, neatly giving that initial hunch credibility and transforming it into 'evidence' which can justify a search.
It's a neat solution to those for whom the Constitution and the fundamentals of our legal system are 'problems' I suppose. Now the only question is whether the Supremes will give this workaround their stamp of approval immediately or send it back down the ranks for some tweaking.
I heard a story from a friend the other day about her coming back from the Caribbean and having a dog alert to her bag. Turned out she had a banana in there that she forgot about. I thought, "Ok, so a drug dog alerts to a banana, and they can search her bag? How is that probable cause? How do we know these dogs only alert to drugs?" Yeah, I still wonder.
Please stop using the PC / Tablets / Smartphones - for many of the hardware were designed in Silicon Valley
Please stop using many of the software that you are using - including technologies that enable you to surf the Net
Without the Silicon Valley - and many of its offspring around the world - the author of TFA can whine all he wants, on a column on his local newspaper - if the editor of his local newspaper grant him a column, that is
Since I live in the modern world, I have no right to criticize or question that world. Is that what you're saying?
For starters, Republicans think the U.S. wasn't founded on separation of church & state, and that women, minorities, homosexuals, or anyone else that isn't a straight, white, Christian male are generally inferior. They also want you to think your body is something to be ashamed of and that abstinence-only education is the way to go despite mountains of data.
It might be fashionable right now to be apathetic and claim the two parties are the same, but one party is genuinely fucked in the head. You might not like the way either party handles certain issues, but FFS at least don't vote for the party that wants to take us back to the stone age.
I'll be blunt here. The parties differ on issues the elite don't care about, and they differ very little on the issues the elite do care about. The elite care about economic and trade policy. They care about foreign policy because it relates to business interests and opportunities. They care about tax policy because it affects their bottom line. They care about security policy because it protects them and their wealth, power and influence.
On these points the parties are largely the same. Both parties are pro free-trade and globalization. Neither party will increase taxes on the wealthy. I know, Obama says he will, but he's been in office 4 years and it hasn't happened yet. Both parties are for a stronger military, law enforcement, and intelligence community. Both parties are pro war, both drug and terror. Both parties are pro security and indifferent to civil liberties.
You see, the elite don't give a crap about health care, gay rights, minority rights, abortion, civil liberties or social mobility. They have enough money to buy all of the above. If you have enough money in the US, you can do pretty much whatever you want. So as long as the parties are squabbling over these social issues, and not over the issues that are truly important to the elite, there can be as much difference as you like. That way, there is a choice of sorts, and the elite still get what they want no matter who wins. Neat little racket they got, eh?
I would personally prefer this "humiliation" to losing one of my family members because one woman would rather be free from the pat-downs/security scanning etc.
Except that's not really the choice you are making. It is not either or. This humiliation did not exist for most of my life, and yet I have not lost a family member to terrorism. It has been pointed out before that we cannot take for granted that the TSA's security measures are actually effective. 4 ounces of liquid? Give me a break. What if your choice were merely between enduring humiliation and not enduring it, with little change in your risk of death? Would you make the same choice?
The enhanced security procedures at airports were enacted because of a strong demand from the populace. And continue to be broadly popular. There have been multiple hearings at both the administrative and congressional levels, as well as oversight hearing by the TSA with adjustments made using those proper process. I never liked the enhanced security procedure but the one undermining democracy here is Andrea Abbott not the TSA.
I don't remember voting on it, or being asked what I thought. What strong demand from the populace? Oh, you mean the one where there was a spectacular attack that scared everyone shitless, and then the news media and government officials exploited the fear by telling us about "Islamofascism" and "sleeper cells" and the "global caliphate" and how they want to kill us all just for being good-looking, and then the people bought it because they were, as previously mentioned, scared shitless? That strong demand?
No fuckhead, this is not a police state. Having worked wtih US LE, the US is not a police state, even int he worst of cases. The reason not to go to the US is the buggered up customs process, which takes 4 hours.
It is a police state. It's just a quieter, more subtle police state.
Slashdot Mirror
be a good little sheep
Unfortunately, a sheep that behaves abnormally ends up in someone's dinner rather quickly.
"They've got you by the balls!"
- George Carlin
cash gives us privacy over our transactions.
"we can't have that, now, citizen! be a good little sheep, agree to the Shiney(tm) we give you and stop questioning what our end goals are."
hey, if you are too dumb to realize you are being played, maybe you deserve to be played. come back in a few years and tell us how good it was for you to surrender your buying habits to google or some other behemoth.
I use cash whenever possible. Most people I find don't understand the value of using cash. But I think they'll miss it when it's gone.
There is an extra annoyance factor of having something (or this guy) IN YOUR FACE though. Would you say that a fly buzzing around across the street is just as annoying as a fly buzzing around your face?
What if the guy stood in the corner of the cafe, filming everyone? Would that be okay, or would people still find that creepy? I think they would find it creepy, even though their personal space was not being violated. The difference is one of perception. You notice the guy, but don't notice the camera. I think this guy makes a good point.
One wrong move and this creepy cameraman may end up with harassment charges. A prosecutor and possibly a judge may argue that his actions differ from security cameras in the sense that a security camera is fixed in place and watches a predefined area to spot crimes and identify perpetrators. In this case, he is very mobile and instead of filming a predefined area, he films individual people. He walks up to a single person and videotapes them with the intent of aggravating them about being videotaped.
What if he backed up a few feet to get a wider angle? Would that make it okay? I agree that he is filming them with the intent of aggravating them. But I think he is also making a good point. The reason they get aggravated is that it is apparent that he is filming them. But the security cameras are inconspicuous and easy to ignore. So the difference really is in the subject's perception.
is that a ref to Dirty Harry?
(hmmm, how fitting, in a way!)
Yes, in the case of Oliver v. United States it was decided that the defendant did indeed feel lucky.
So your argument is that 'Obama is bad, but the other guy is worse?' That's shitty and depressing.
That's modern American politics...
The fact is that bad cops are brought to justice. But don't let the fact's obscure your irrational hatred of authority.
Irrational??
If it was legal the price would drop significantly because the risk in dealing would be removed, and it probably wouldn't be the biggest cash crop anymore.
So, it would drop behind corn?
The thing is, dogs are eager to please. You dont even have to try to train them to alert whenever their handler is suspicious - they do that naturally. So the way this works is, the cop's 'gut' isnt sufficient to get a warrant, he needs some evidence not just a hunch. So he just gets the dog, who naturally picks up on the handlers state of mind and will alert as a result, neatly giving that initial hunch credibility and transforming it into 'evidence' which can justify a search.
It's a neat solution to those for whom the Constitution and the fundamentals of our legal system are 'problems' I suppose. Now the only question is whether the Supremes will give this workaround their stamp of approval immediately or send it back down the ranks for some tweaking.
I heard a story from a friend the other day about her coming back from the Caribbean and having a dog alert to her bag. Turned out she had a banana in there that she forgot about. I thought, "Ok, so a drug dog alerts to a banana, and they can search her bag? How is that probable cause? How do we know these dogs only alert to drugs?" Yeah, I still wonder.
Well said!
The author said: "To fix it, we're going to need to work on social justice." Social justice is a code word for Marxism. 'Nuff said.
Can you even define Marxism? I mean really...
... well ...
Please stop using the PC / Tablets / Smartphones - for many of the hardware were designed in Silicon Valley
Please stop using many of the software that you are using - including technologies that enable you to surf the Net
Without the Silicon Valley - and many of its offspring around the world - the author of TFA can whine all he wants, on a column on his local newspaper - if the editor of his local newspaper grant him a column, that is
Since I live in the modern world, I have no right to criticize or question that world. Is that what you're saying?
Well, for a non-Marxist, he sure does have a lot of Marxist friends.
Really, Marxist? Who?
For starters, Republicans think the U.S. wasn't founded on separation of church & state, and that women, minorities, homosexuals, or anyone else that isn't a straight, white, Christian male are generally inferior. They also want you to think your body is something to be ashamed of and that abstinence-only education is the way to go despite mountains of data.
It might be fashionable right now to be apathetic and claim the two parties are the same, but one party is genuinely fucked in the head. You might not like the way either party handles certain issues, but FFS at least don't vote for the party that wants to take us back to the stone age.
I'll be blunt here. The parties differ on issues the elite don't care about, and they differ very little on the issues the elite do care about. The elite care about economic and trade policy. They care about foreign policy because it relates to business interests and opportunities. They care about tax policy because it affects their bottom line. They care about security policy because it protects them and their wealth, power and influence.
On these points the parties are largely the same. Both parties are pro free-trade and globalization. Neither party will increase taxes on the wealthy. I know, Obama says he will, but he's been in office 4 years and it hasn't happened yet. Both parties are for a stronger military, law enforcement, and intelligence community. Both parties are pro war, both drug and terror. Both parties are pro security and indifferent to civil liberties.
You see, the elite don't give a crap about health care, gay rights, minority rights, abortion, civil liberties or social mobility. They have enough money to buy all of the above. If you have enough money in the US, you can do pretty much whatever you want. So as long as the parties are squabbling over these social issues, and not over the issues that are truly important to the elite, there can be as much difference as you like. That way, there is a choice of sorts, and the elite still get what they want no matter who wins. Neat little racket they got, eh?
Let me guess...
Because you want to brighten up my day, make sure that I fly straight and improve my life?
No, that's the TSA's job! ;-)
I would personally prefer this "humiliation" to losing one of my family members because one woman would rather be free from the pat-downs/security scanning etc.
Except that's not really the choice you are making. It is not either or. This humiliation did not exist for most of my life, and yet I have not lost a family member to terrorism. It has been pointed out before that we cannot take for granted that the TSA's security measures are actually effective. 4 ounces of liquid? Give me a break. What if your choice were merely between enduring humiliation and not enduring it, with little change in your risk of death? Would you make the same choice?
The enhanced security procedures at airports were enacted because of a strong demand from the populace. And continue to be broadly popular. There have been multiple hearings at both the administrative and congressional levels, as well as oversight hearing by the TSA with adjustments made using those proper process. I never liked the enhanced security procedure but the one undermining democracy here is Andrea Abbott not the TSA.
I don't remember voting on it, or being asked what I thought. What strong demand from the populace? Oh, you mean the one where there was a spectacular attack that scared everyone shitless, and then the news media and government officials exploited the fear by telling us about "Islamofascism" and "sleeper cells" and the "global caliphate" and how they want to kill us all just for being good-looking, and then the people bought it because they were, as previously mentioned, scared shitless? That strong demand?
No fuckhead, this is not a police state. Having worked wtih US LE, the US is not a police state, even int he worst of cases. The reason not to go to the US is the buggered up customs process, which takes 4 hours.
It is a police state. It's just a quieter, more subtle police state.
Doesn't matter. You're in the stew with the rest of us!
Ditto, what possible reason is there to visit the US anymore?
The Grand Canyon?
Um, whoosh?
The people who run the American empire would rather be feared than loved.
What is this world coming to?
Fear and those who exploit it.
Can we agree that there is enough blame to go around? That really is all I'm trying to point out. BTW, I like your sig.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity
I have heard this saying before. But I have never understood why I should consider it to be correct. Don't the malicious often feign ignorance?