If you get 100K and 30K are withheld, it's the same as just getting a salary of 70K. It's a scam. There are no income taxes for gov't employees.
Exactly the same thing can be said for private sector employees. Except it isn't the amount withheld that matters, it is the amount the government gets to keep of what is withheld. So, if you are a Microsoft employee and get $100k, $30k of which goes to pay federal taxes, it is the same as just getting a salary of $70k.
but also to allow gov't employees to make even more money if they can claim various deductions upon that money (like home mortgage, etc.), which I am sure they do.
Of course they do, just like the Microsoft employee would. It is, after all, a salary upon which income taxes are paid, subject to the same deductions and allowances as any other salary. And that is what makes this lie about government employees not paying taxes just that -- a lie.
The banks have just trashed the economy by selling derivates as actual notes, but NO ONE even to this day, understands their motive.
You don't understand the motive, but it really isn't that hard. Where else did you think all the crap loans that the CRA forced the banks to make would wind up, paid off in fairy dust from Nevernever land?
And when the people who wrote and pushed the CRA were told "it's going to break, we need to fix it", and they kept saying "there's no problem, there's no problem" and did nothing, did you imagine that Hansel and Gretel would buy up all the gingerbread mortgages so they could have something yummy to eat?
Obama gets stonewalled wherever he goes,
Like Bush got stonewalled when he wanted to redesign Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Franks and Dodd and the other CRA architects said there was no problem and thus did nothing?
But compared to the madness of Geo Bush et al, he's fending well.
Other than being a deliberate liar making promises he knew he couldn't keep just to get elected, Obama is doing very well. Now, tell me why it was madness to try to fix the mortgage problem before it exploded and not by simply handing out tons of money to political cronies like ACORN after?
I have never run into a case where a police officer claimed I was going 65 in a 55 when I was not (Ok, once or twice I was going even faster).
That's completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. You got the ticket and got convicted on the basis of his word alone. Unless you were stupid enough to say "guilty" and not even try to get a reduced charge/penalty. Even then, you are in court only because of his word.
Additionally, I have never been issued a speeding ticket on the unsupported word of a police officer.
Which is it, have you gotten tickets for going 65 in a 55 or not? When you say "Ok, once or twice" that implies you got ticketed for it, not just a warning. If you got those tickets, what other evidence did the cop provide? If you are going to say "radar", then you're back at the cop's word against yours, since there is no other record of the radar reading than his word that it read "65" when it was pointed at you. (Free clue, a tuning fork of the appropriate frequency will make a traffic radar read 65 MPH. That's how the Michigan State Police used to (and probably still does) calibrate their speed radars.)
Of course, since I was not asking you, why did you feel compelled to answer? I was asking the poster I was replying to.
You asked your question in a public forum that can be read by anyone, and answered by anyone. The answer was pretty much global: cops are officers of the court and trained observers. You lose.
Finally, you entered a discussion about how it is terrible that a cop's word carries more weight in a court of law than that of the average citizen,
No, I did not. I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION about why one would think a cop's word would weigh more:
The other thing is, upon what do you base the supposition that the cop would win by default?
And I countered your nonsensical:
However, I do not know of any case where a police officer's word, on its own, was enough to convict someone without at least some corroborating evidence.
The next time you go into court for a ticket that says you were doing 66 in a 55 and say "not guilty" and lose, or any other moving violating for that matter, you will have personal experience with a case where a police officer's word, on it's own, was enough to convict you. Even something as simple as a parking ticket for parking at an expired meter. Until then, you'll have to do with the experience of hundreds of thousands of other people who have done just the same thing and gotten fined and points.
According to numerous court rulings, if the radar gun is uncalibrated, or the officer is not properly trained to use it, any evidence gained using it is inadmissable in court.
"I calibrated it before going on shift." Cop's word. Here's the log where he wrote down that he calibrated it. Did he actually do it? His word over yours.
So, if he claimed that he clocked me at 65 mph using an uncalibrated radar gun, or one which he was not trained to use, the court would tell him he had no idea what speed I was going and dismiss the ticket.
You've ignored the fact that the cop is considered to be "a trained observer". His estimate of your speed will be given more weight than your claim. While that estimate may get you off because the judge will not consider it sufficient evidence, it will still be evidence, and, all else being equal, the judge will believe him and not you.
However, you have failed to demonstrate that the court would actually take his word over mine,
I'm sorry, I don't have the time to cite every court appearance made by someone who is fighting a ticket who says "not guilty" against a cop saying "he did it" and the result was a fine and points. I'm certain that they must number in the billions by now. Each one is a case of the cop's word being taken over the average citizen.
Finally, you have failed to indicate why it would be a bad thing if they did,
Since I wasn't trying to indicate why it is a bad thing, I didn't fail to accomplish that. You asked WHY a cop's word would have more weight than yours, and I told you. If you don' t like the answer, argue with the courts, not me.
They only miss the match as these checks are mostly done on hooligan groups and they all have club memberships (which many of them don't even pay).
So the only people who go to football matches wherever you are are hooligans? You started by saying:
They scan everyone going into the stadium,
Do they only bother doing the full check on hooligans, or do innocent innocent people get hauled off to jail for a few hours and lose the price of the ticket because of the false positive? Just how do the police know who the hooligans are until they start doing hooligan-type activities? Are they profiling based on dress?
Not the same ISPs. ANY ISP that is on the traceroute to uncensored websites allowing https.
One of the ideas of the Internet is that routing can change at a moment's notice to "route around failures". The traceroute you run now may have a different result than one you ran a minute ago.
In other words, the packet you send to site A can travel over any route between you and A, and it will not necessarily always go through Telex site B.
Now, the packets that Telex site B send to Censored site C on your behalf will get through because it doesn't matter what route you used to get to B, B is talking to C and C sends the answers back to B, which then sends them back to you over any route available.
But if your route to A changes during the connection, your "secret connection" to C goes away. B is no longer redirecting your packets to C because B isn't getting them. Some other sites are doing the routing. New Telex site D may get your packets, but the connection was between B and C, not D and C. And if there are no Telex sites between you and A on this new route, A is going to get packets for a connection that it doesn't have setup.
The only reliable way for this to work is if the Telex sites are at YOUR ISP so there is little chance of a routing change. If it is at your ISP, then they are most likley under the same government thumb that you are, and you are hosed.
And yet you claimed it would be easy to prove him wrong if he was.
So, you see there is posible evidence that would indicate that his claim was false.
No, you have possible evidence that the gun was uncalibrated or that he didn't know how to use it. Neither proves his claim is false, only that his claim cannot be substantiated by radar.
Additionally, I would present whatever evidence I was aware ofthat indicated that he was out to get me.
In other words, it would he hard to disprove his claim and his word would be given more weight than yours.
So, are you suggesting that there is no basis for giving more weight to the word of one person over another?
Huh? I said no such thing. In fact, I just gave two reasons why the cop's word would be given more weight than yours.
It is not that hard to present sufficient evidence that a cop is not a trustworthy witness, if indeed that is true.
You drive past the cop with a radar gun. He pulls you over and writes you a ticket for 66 in a 55. It's his word against your's. Where is your evidence? What steps would you take to prove him wrong?
Secondly, I know that one of the questions they ask of prospective jurors is if they would be likely to take the word of a cop over that of someone else. If the answer is "yes", they do not call you for jury duty.
First of all, traffic offenses rarely, if ever, merit trial by jury. Second, by the time they are asking you questions as a prospective jury member, you have already been called for jury duty. And third, the questions asked are at the discretion of the lawyers, and whether they dismiss you from the jury is up to the challenges from the lawyers. It isn't automatic. Would a judge accept a 'for cause' dismissal based on a 'yes' answer to your hypothetical question? Maybe. Maybe not.
For non-jury proceedings, the judge certainly will take the word of the cop over yours, unless there is something obviously incorrect or the judge has had previous issues with that specific cop. E.g., 'the traffic was heavy' and the ticket was written at 3AM on a back road.
However, I do not know of any case where a police officer's word, on its own, was enough to convict someone without at least some corroborating evidence.
In almost any traffic violation case, the only evidence is the word of the cop. What was the reading on the radar gun? The cop's word. Was that radar gun calibrated? The cop's word. Were you going "too fast for conditions"? The cop's opinion, not even a verifiable fact.
The other thing is, upon what do you base the supposition that the cop would win by default?
The cop is both "an officer of the court" and "a trained observer". You are almost certainly neither one.
Who said anything about imprisonment or fines? they just get their prints checked by an expert to confirm the match. It takes at most a couple of hours.
So, you're saying that they take the prints at the gate and then let the fellow into the stadium while checking them?
Or do they take the person in to the station (holding him there against his will) until the print check is over (and so is the event that the person was going to)?
He's confined for "a couple of hours" and is out the money he spent on the ticket.
... it's a bit hard not to make a disturbance when doing that.
No, it is actually very easy not to make a disturbance. 1. Don't raise your voice. 2. Don't use obscenities or "curse". Simply say "no".
I could have added the first step: don't get into a line where everyone is either scanned or patted down in the first place. That's a trivial option.
There is an insightful xkcd, the number of which I do not know, that has someone asking a TSA screener why he's not concerned about the laptop batteries he could overvolt and cause to explode. He then tells his girlfriend that don't worry, the TSA fellow will see the error of his ways and return the guy's bottle of water. I think the point is, trying to debate your way out of the screening taking place at the front of the line by rapier wit isn't going to work and you know it, so expecting it to work and then getting irate when it doesn't isn't productive or reasonable.
The woman got into that line knowing what was going to happen. It wasn't a surprise. That's still not the real point I'm trying to make, however. The SUMMARY of the article was deliberately misleading, trying to be sensationalistic about the event. OMG, she 'raised her voice' as someone else said. Read the article. Yelling and cursing are a step or two above that, but neither are simply "refusing to allow the screening". You can refuse without cursing or screaming.
No actually it's not. It's much more like being arrested for yelling at police officer who refuses to stop trespassing on your property.
No, actually it's not. It's like getting into a line at the airport where you know that you are either going to be scanned or patted down, then yelling obscenities and creating a disturbance when you are asked to go through the scanner or be patted down.
It's not like she didn't see this happening to every person ahead of her in line, even if she was totally ignorant of it prior to getting in line. She could have gotten out of line at any time. No, it seems she thought that she was going to get special treatment because she objected.
When she didn't, she chose to create a disturbance by yelling obscenities at the screener. Did you bother reading the article? No, of course you didn't. The article was pretty clear about saying why she was arrested, and simply "refusing to let her children be scanned" wasn't it. The manner in which she refused had something to do with it.
I've had cross words with TSA screeners before, but I've never found it advantagous or productive to scream obscenities at them. I've also never been arrested. What an odd coincidence, wouldn't you say?
You are completely within your rights,
Really? To stand in an airport and create a disturbance? That's your right?
The summary is typically misleading. She was not arrested for refusing to let her children be scanned. She was arrested for making a disturbance. Disturbing the peace, they call it.
It's like saying someone was arrested for driving a car when the truth was he was driving a stolen car at 100MPH down a residential street. It is more sensational to read about the guy who was arrested for no apparent reason than to actually say what the reason was.
Now, the TSA person who lied to her like that should be fired, yes indeedee doo. And THAT would have made a good headline, focussing on the stupidity/ignorance/deceitfullness of the TSA.
If they're failing earlier than their warranty period, you should be getting new ones for close to free (possibly have to pay shipping for the old one back).
"Close to free" and "pay for shipping" are mutually exclusive concepts.
Do you realize that you are going to be shipping a hazardous material in a fragile container?
a 7-year warranty (long enough to guarantee recoup of cost)
Where did you get the idea that a "7-year warranty" was a guarantee of anything other than you might be able to get a replacement when the first one burns out in less than 7 years, at some unspecified cost in shipping and handling and time and effort?
No, sorry. Manufacturer guarantees are not proof that the item will live that long, it is only a marketing tool that they hope will convince you to buy their product instead of someone else's, with the knowledge on their part that you will probably not make the effort to collect on the warranty if the bulb does fail. For heaven's sake, who keeps all the receipts for $3 light bulbs for seven years?
It's like coupons and mail-in rebates. The companies bet that you aren't going to go to the effort to get your $10 rebate on something, and many people simple don't. But they also know that you figured in that $10 rebate when you bought the item in the first place. "Oh, look, Brand X is ten dollars cheaper (after rebate) than Brand Y! I can save $10."
In fact my business only accepts credit cards or electronic checks and I'm still shocked how many customers ask to pay with cash.
You know, this twisted US Treasury interpretation that "legal tender" doesn't have to be accepted as a means of cancelling a debt really shoots the meaning of "legal tender" right in the ass.
How can something be officially sanctioned as a means of paying a debt if all someone has to do is say "no"? I mean, the US Government has said, in federal law, that the ten dollar bill I'm handing you is "legal tender for all debts", which means it is a specified way of cancelling that debt. How can you override federal law by saying "no, it isn't?"
Now, I ASSUME you are quite clear up front before letting someone rack up a debt that they will not be able to pay with real money. Otherwise I cannot see how you can be within the law by refusing it as payment. The only way out I see is if you don't allow someone who wants to pay with cash to incur the debt to start with.
I also recommend printing out a copy of the TSA page on flying with firearms, in case you get somebody who doesn't have a clue.
Fantastic. I think everyone who flies should carry one round of ammunition in an original package every time they fly. The rule that TSA will inspect the package at the ticket counter will cause a massive breakdown in the TSA system, as all TSA operatives will be up at the ticket counter inspecting one round of ammunition each and nobody will be available to search bags and steal stuff. It will also require a personal escort to the CTX machines so that the passenger doesn't do anything to the now-searched baggage.
Or, the checkin process will get so backed up that nobody will be able to fly anywhere.
Everyone in the USA should learn Chinese. For economic, political, and social reasons.
The only reason for anyone to learn Chinese is so they can read the user manuals in the original language instead of Chenglish. I have a new amateur radio from China that I don't know half of what it does because the damn manual is written in Chenglish and large parts are complete gibberish.
And I bought this model because the other main Chinese import radio has a CHINESE ACCENT in the spoken announcements.
I took three years of Spanish in school and hear someone speaking it maybe 3 times a month.
Don't call any company with a call director, do you? "para espanol, poko de numbero fivo, por favor". And you don't go anyplace where someone has pissed on the floor, do you? (Learned something new recently -- mojado means "wet", not "floor", and piso means "floor", not "piss". And all this time I thought the sign "piso mojado" said "piss on floor".)
hey pudge, i specifically mean "makers who run businesses" - which a lot of the makers who read MAKE tend to be, or want to become.
Silly me. I thought that the idea behind "MAKE" was to promote home brew experimentation and innovation, not provide info to the new manufacturers. I guess since I don't want to become a company making some electronic geegaw trinket I might as well stop reading MAKE. Especially that section where the guy makes things out of real money that are cheaper than the mass-produced thing he's copying.
Companies who want to do business with China will be better off hiring a US-based translator than anyone in the company taking the time to learn to speak Mandarin. You'll never recover the costs of the education for a dedicated translator (unless you become a major producer of something and have to deal with a dozen factories or fabs). In fact, I know people who work at HP that are almost exclusively dealing with foreign fabs and factories and they don't bother to learn the local language, they use a translator when necessary.
Sure, except for all the things you can't do with it, because you don't have end-to-end connectivity. But you don't know about those things, because nobody is selling those products, because they don't work, because everybody's home gateway boxes break end-to-end connectivity.
Which, for most users, is a Good Thing, not A Problem. It allows most users to simply install iTunes on their peecee and turn on sharing so they can access their music library from other peecees without having to worry about someone outside scamming their music. Their "gateway" is keeping the bad guys out by "breaking end to end connectivity", at least when the initiating end is outside the home.
It is that last item that makes "breaking" a Good Thing.
Can you give some clues (or even be more explicit) on what mechanisms are being considered to allow "no configuration" end-to-end connectivity to occur? How does the gateway at your house know the address of your phone unless you tell it? Yes, it can know the address your phone is using, but how does it know that it is YOUR phone and should be allowed in?
Slashdot Mirror
If you get 100K and 30K are withheld, it's the same as just getting a salary of 70K. It's a scam. There are no income taxes for gov't employees.
Exactly the same thing can be said for private sector employees. Except it isn't the amount withheld that matters, it is the amount the government gets to keep of what is withheld. So, if you are a Microsoft employee and get $100k, $30k of which goes to pay federal taxes, it is the same as just getting a salary of $70k.
but also to allow gov't employees to make even more money if they can claim various deductions upon that money (like home mortgage, etc.), which I am sure they do.
Of course they do, just like the Microsoft employee would. It is, after all, a salary upon which income taxes are paid, subject to the same deductions and allowances as any other salary. And that is what makes this lie about government employees not paying taxes just that -- a lie.
The banks have just trashed the economy by selling derivates as actual notes, but NO ONE even to this day, understands their motive.
You don't understand the motive, but it really isn't that hard. Where else did you think all the crap loans that the CRA forced the banks to make would wind up, paid off in fairy dust from Nevernever land?
And when the people who wrote and pushed the CRA were told "it's going to break, we need to fix it", and they kept saying "there's no problem, there's no problem" and did nothing, did you imagine that Hansel and Gretel would buy up all the gingerbread mortgages so they could have something yummy to eat?
Obama gets stonewalled wherever he goes,
Like Bush got stonewalled when he wanted to redesign Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Franks and Dodd and the other CRA architects said there was no problem and thus did nothing?
But compared to the madness of Geo Bush et al, he's fending well.
Other than being a deliberate liar making promises he knew he couldn't keep just to get elected, Obama is doing very well. Now, tell me why it was madness to try to fix the mortgage problem before it exploded and not by simply handing out tons of money to political cronies like ACORN after?
I have never run into a case where a police officer claimed I was going 65 in a 55 when I was not (Ok, once or twice I was going even faster).
That's completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. You got the ticket and got convicted on the basis of his word alone. Unless you were stupid enough to say "guilty" and not even try to get a reduced charge/penalty. Even then, you are in court only because of his word.
Additionally, I have never been issued a speeding ticket on the unsupported word of a police officer.
Which is it, have you gotten tickets for going 65 in a 55 or not? When you say "Ok, once or twice" that implies you got ticketed for it, not just a warning. If you got those tickets, what other evidence did the cop provide? If you are going to say "radar", then you're back at the cop's word against yours, since there is no other record of the radar reading than his word that it read "65" when it was pointed at you. (Free clue, a tuning fork of the appropriate frequency will make a traffic radar read 65 MPH. That's how the Michigan State Police used to (and probably still does) calibrate their speed radars.)
Of course, since I was not asking you, why did you feel compelled to answer? I was asking the poster I was replying to.
You asked your question in a public forum that can be read by anyone, and answered by anyone. The answer was pretty much global: cops are officers of the court and trained observers. You lose.
Finally, you entered a discussion about how it is terrible that a cop's word carries more weight in a court of law than that of the average citizen,
No, I did not. I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION about why one would think a cop's word would weigh more:
The other thing is, upon what do you base the supposition that the cop would win by default?
And I countered your nonsensical:
However, I do not know of any case where a police officer's word, on its own, was enough to convict someone without at least some corroborating evidence.
The next time you go into court for a ticket that says you were doing 66 in a 55 and say "not guilty" and lose, or any other moving violating for that matter, you will have personal experience with a case where a police officer's word, on it's own, was enough to convict you. Even something as simple as a parking ticket for parking at an expired meter. Until then, you'll have to do with the experience of hundreds of thousands of other people who have done just the same thing and gotten fined and points.
Arbitrary data can be encapsulated so that it can traverse limited character bottlenecks like this. I believe UUENCODE/UUDECODE does this.
And sensitive or private data can be ROT13'd before or after UUENCODEing it (or both, for twice the protection!)
According to numerous court rulings, if the radar gun is uncalibrated, or the officer is not properly trained to use it, any evidence gained using it is inadmissable in court.
"I calibrated it before going on shift." Cop's word. Here's the log where he wrote down that he calibrated it. Did he actually do it? His word over yours.
So, if he claimed that he clocked me at 65 mph using an uncalibrated radar gun, or one which he was not trained to use, the court would tell him he had no idea what speed I was going and dismiss the ticket.
You've ignored the fact that the cop is considered to be "a trained observer". His estimate of your speed will be given more weight than your claim. While that estimate may get you off because the judge will not consider it sufficient evidence, it will still be evidence, and, all else being equal, the judge will believe him and not you.
However, you have failed to demonstrate that the court would actually take his word over mine,
I'm sorry, I don't have the time to cite every court appearance made by someone who is fighting a ticket who says "not guilty" against a cop saying "he did it" and the result was a fine and points. I'm certain that they must number in the billions by now. Each one is a case of the cop's word being taken over the average citizen.
Finally, you have failed to indicate why it would be a bad thing if they did,
Since I wasn't trying to indicate why it is a bad thing, I didn't fail to accomplish that. You asked WHY a cop's word would have more weight than yours, and I told you. If you don' t like the answer, argue with the courts, not me.
They only miss the match as these checks are mostly done on hooligan groups and they all have club memberships (which many of them don't even pay) .
So the only people who go to football matches wherever you are are hooligans? You started by saying:
They scan everyone going into the stadium,
Do they only bother doing the full check on hooligans, or do innocent innocent people get hauled off to jail for a few hours and lose the price of the ticket because of the false positive? Just how do the police know who the hooligans are until they start doing hooligan-type activities? Are they profiling based on dress?
Not the same ISPs. ANY ISP that is on the traceroute to uncensored websites allowing https.
One of the ideas of the Internet is that routing can change at a moment's notice to "route around failures". The traceroute you run now may have a different result than one you ran a minute ago.
In other words, the packet you send to site A can travel over any route between you and A, and it will not necessarily always go through Telex site B.
Now, the packets that Telex site B send to Censored site C on your behalf will get through because it doesn't matter what route you used to get to B, B is talking to C and C sends the answers back to B, which then sends them back to you over any route available.
But if your route to A changes during the connection, your "secret connection" to C goes away. B is no longer redirecting your packets to C because B isn't getting them. Some other sites are doing the routing. New Telex site D may get your packets, but the connection was between B and C, not D and C. And if there are no Telex sites between you and A on this new route, A is going to get packets for a connection that it doesn't have setup.
The only reliable way for this to work is if the Telex sites are at YOUR ISP so there is little chance of a routing change. If it is at your ISP, then they are most likley under the same government thumb that you are, and you are hosed.
I don't have any evidence.
And yet you claimed it would be easy to prove him wrong if he was.
So, you see there is posible evidence that would indicate that his claim was false.
No, you have possible evidence that the gun was uncalibrated or that he didn't know how to use it. Neither proves his claim is false, only that his claim cannot be substantiated by radar.
Additionally, I would present whatever evidence I was aware ofthat indicated that he was out to get me.
In other words, it would he hard to disprove his claim and his word would be given more weight than yours.
Heck, there's a guy in our office who looks like Obama, but he's never even been near Kenya.
What about Hawaii or Boston?
So, are you suggesting that there is no basis for giving more weight to the word of one person over another?
Huh? I said no such thing. In fact, I just gave two reasons why the cop's word would be given more weight than yours.
It is not that hard to present sufficient evidence that a cop is not a trustworthy witness, if indeed that is true.
You drive past the cop with a radar gun. He pulls you over and writes you a ticket for 66 in a 55. It's his word against your's. Where is your evidence? What steps would you take to prove him wrong?
Secondly, I know that one of the questions they ask of prospective jurors is if they would be likely to take the word of a cop over that of someone else. If the answer is "yes", they do not call you for jury duty.
First of all, traffic offenses rarely, if ever, merit trial by jury. Second, by the time they are asking you questions as a prospective jury member, you have already been called for jury duty. And third, the questions asked are at the discretion of the lawyers, and whether they dismiss you from the jury is up to the challenges from the lawyers. It isn't automatic. Would a judge accept a 'for cause' dismissal based on a 'yes' answer to your hypothetical question? Maybe. Maybe not.
For non-jury proceedings, the judge certainly will take the word of the cop over yours, unless there is something obviously incorrect or the judge has had previous issues with that specific cop. E.g., 'the traffic was heavy' and the ticket was written at 3AM on a back road.
Did you read what was being said at all?
However, I do not know of any case where a police officer's word, on its own, was enough to convict someone without at least some corroborating evidence.
In almost any traffic violation case, the only evidence is the word of the cop. What was the reading on the radar gun? The cop's word. Was that radar gun calibrated? The cop's word. Were you going "too fast for conditions"? The cop's opinion, not even a verifiable fact.
The other thing is, upon what do you base the supposition that the cop would win by default?
The cop is both "an officer of the court" and "a trained observer". You are almost certainly neither one.
Who said anything about imprisonment or fines? they just get their prints checked by an expert to confirm the match. It takes at most a couple of hours.
So, you're saying that they take the prints at the gate and then let the fellow into the stadium while checking them?
Or do they take the person in to the station (holding him there against his will) until the print check is over (and so is the event that the person was going to)?
He's confined for "a couple of hours" and is out the money he spent on the ticket.
... it's a bit hard not to make a disturbance when doing that.
No, it is actually very easy not to make a disturbance. 1. Don't raise your voice. 2. Don't use obscenities or "curse". Simply say "no".
I could have added the first step: don't get into a line where everyone is either scanned or patted down in the first place. That's a trivial option.
There is an insightful xkcd, the number of which I do not know, that has someone asking a TSA screener why he's not concerned about the laptop batteries he could overvolt and cause to explode. He then tells his girlfriend that don't worry, the TSA fellow will see the error of his ways and return the guy's bottle of water. I think the point is, trying to debate your way out of the screening taking place at the front of the line by rapier wit isn't going to work and you know it, so expecting it to work and then getting irate when it doesn't isn't productive or reasonable.
The woman got into that line knowing what was going to happen. It wasn't a surprise. That's still not the real point I'm trying to make, however. The SUMMARY of the article was deliberately misleading, trying to be sensationalistic about the event. OMG, she 'raised her voice' as someone else said. Read the article. Yelling and cursing are a step or two above that, but neither are simply "refusing to allow the screening". You can refuse without cursing or screaming.
No actually it's not. It's much more like being arrested for yelling at police officer who refuses to stop trespassing on your property.
No, actually it's not. It's like getting into a line at the airport where you know that you are either going to be scanned or patted down, then yelling obscenities and creating a disturbance when you are asked to go through the scanner or be patted down.
It's not like she didn't see this happening to every person ahead of her in line, even if she was totally ignorant of it prior to getting in line. She could have gotten out of line at any time. No, it seems she thought that she was going to get special treatment because she objected.
When she didn't, she chose to create a disturbance by yelling obscenities at the screener. Did you bother reading the article? No, of course you didn't. The article was pretty clear about saying why she was arrested, and simply "refusing to let her children be scanned" wasn't it. The manner in which she refused had something to do with it.
I've had cross words with TSA screeners before, but I've never found it advantagous or productive to scream obscenities at them. I've also never been arrested. What an odd coincidence, wouldn't you say?
You are completely within your rights,
Really? To stand in an airport and create a disturbance? That's your right?
It's like saying someone was arrested for driving a car when the truth was he was driving a stolen car at 100MPH down a residential street. It is more sensational to read about the guy who was arrested for no apparent reason than to actually say what the reason was.
Now, the TSA person who lied to her like that should be fired, yes indeedee doo. And THAT would have made a good headline, focussing on the stupidity/ignorance/deceitfullness of the TSA.
Thing is, in the case of children, they need to have actual medical staff like RNs and MDs on hand to handle children and teenagers.
Ok, I'll bite. Why? What is inherently medical in nature in a TSA search that requires the skills of an RN or MD to do it?
XP has not been sold on systems for years,
Bzzzzt. Thank you for playing, your parting gifts will be shipped to you next week.
I bought two XP systems within the last six months. Brand new.
If they're failing earlier than their warranty period, you should be getting new ones for close to free (possibly have to pay shipping for the old one back).
"Close to free" and "pay for shipping" are mutually exclusive concepts.
Do you realize that you are going to be shipping a hazardous material in a fragile container?
a 7-year warranty (long enough to guarantee recoup of cost)
Where did you get the idea that a "7-year warranty" was a guarantee of anything other than you might be able to get a replacement when the first one burns out in less than 7 years, at some unspecified cost in shipping and handling and time and effort?
No, sorry. Manufacturer guarantees are not proof that the item will live that long, it is only a marketing tool that they hope will convince you to buy their product instead of someone else's, with the knowledge on their part that you will probably not make the effort to collect on the warranty if the bulb does fail. For heaven's sake, who keeps all the receipts for $3 light bulbs for seven years?
It's like coupons and mail-in rebates. The companies bet that you aren't going to go to the effort to get your $10 rebate on something, and many people simple don't. But they also know that you figured in that $10 rebate when you bought the item in the first place. "Oh, look, Brand X is ten dollars cheaper (after rebate) than Brand Y! I can save $10."
In fact my business only accepts credit cards or electronic checks and I'm still shocked how many customers ask to pay with cash.
You know, this twisted US Treasury interpretation that "legal tender" doesn't have to be accepted as a means of cancelling a debt really shoots the meaning of "legal tender" right in the ass.
How can something be officially sanctioned as a means of paying a debt if all someone has to do is say "no"? I mean, the US Government has said, in federal law, that the ten dollar bill I'm handing you is "legal tender for all debts", which means it is a specified way of cancelling that debt. How can you override federal law by saying "no, it isn't?"
Now, I ASSUME you are quite clear up front before letting someone rack up a debt that they will not be able to pay with real money. Otherwise I cannot see how you can be within the law by refusing it as payment. The only way out I see is if you don't allow someone who wants to pay with cash to incur the debt to start with.
I also recommend printing out a copy of the TSA page on flying with firearms, in case you get somebody who doesn't have a clue.
Fantastic. I think everyone who flies should carry one round of ammunition in an original package every time they fly. The rule that TSA will inspect the package at the ticket counter will cause a massive breakdown in the TSA system, as all TSA operatives will be up at the ticket counter inspecting one round of ammunition each and nobody will be available to search bags and steal stuff. It will also require a personal escort to the CTX machines so that the passenger doesn't do anything to the now-searched baggage.
Or, the checkin process will get so backed up that nobody will be able to fly anywhere.
Everyone in the USA should learn Chinese. For economic, political, and social reasons.
The only reason for anyone to learn Chinese is so they can read the user manuals in the original language instead of Chenglish. I have a new amateur radio from China that I don't know half of what it does because the damn manual is written in Chenglish and large parts are complete gibberish.
And I bought this model because the other main Chinese import radio has a CHINESE ACCENT in the spoken announcements.
I took three years of Spanish in school and hear someone speaking it maybe 3 times a month.
Don't call any company with a call director, do you? "para espanol, poko de numbero fivo, por favor". And you don't go anyplace where someone has pissed on the floor, do you? (Learned something new recently -- mojado means "wet", not "floor", and piso means "floor", not "piss". And all this time I thought the sign "piso mojado" said "piss on floor".)
hey pudge, i specifically mean "makers who run businesses" - which a lot of the makers who read MAKE tend to be, or want to become.
Silly me. I thought that the idea behind "MAKE" was to promote home brew experimentation and innovation, not provide info to the new manufacturers. I guess since I don't want to become a company making some electronic geegaw trinket I might as well stop reading MAKE. Especially that section where the guy makes things out of real money that are cheaper than the mass-produced thing he's copying.
Companies who want to do business with China will be better off hiring a US-based translator than anyone in the company taking the time to learn to speak Mandarin. You'll never recover the costs of the education for a dedicated translator (unless you become a major producer of something and have to deal with a dozen factories or fabs). In fact, I know people who work at HP that are almost exclusively dealing with foreign fabs and factories and they don't bother to learn the local language, they use a translator when necessary.
Sure, except for all the things you can't do with it, because you don't have end-to-end connectivity. But you don't know about those things, because nobody is selling those products, because they don't work, because everybody's home gateway boxes break end-to-end connectivity.
Which, for most users, is a Good Thing, not A Problem. It allows most users to simply install iTunes on their peecee and turn on sharing so they can access their music library from other peecees without having to worry about someone outside scamming their music. Their "gateway" is keeping the bad guys out by "breaking end to end connectivity", at least when the initiating end is outside the home.
It is that last item that makes "breaking" a Good Thing.
Can you give some clues (or even be more explicit) on what mechanisms are being considered to allow "no configuration" end-to-end connectivity to occur? How does the gateway at your house know the address of your phone unless you tell it? Yes, it can know the address your phone is using, but how does it know that it is YOUR phone and should be allowed in?