But yanking the Google Glass off of her face, dropping it to the ground, and stomping it into a twisted, useless jumble of tangled metal? Don't see a problem with that.
Economic support from the government supports your right to try something economically risky. It supports your right to start a business without risking your children's dinner.
that the watchdogs are rewarded with more power for not doing their jobs.
Actually, they were rewarded for doing their jobs masterfully. "Their job" is to exercise the power they currently hold, while seizing more at every opportunity.
The whole spiel about protecting the public is just the sales pitch that is offered to get the public to accept their existence and actions.
I did believe that Romney would have made it worse.
Hopefully by now you've realized that he wouldn't have.
The political theater that plays out in the media is all but irrelevant. The particular individual that lands in office is all but irrelevant.
The agenda of the real decision makers moves forward regardless of those trivialities. Sure, some irrelevant details may have been different in one way or another, but nothing of any long term importance. The differences would have been part of the theatrics that are played out for the public to keep us distracted.
You don't rise to a position of power in our political system without owing favors that must be repaid. Obama, Romney.... Wouldn't matter. They'd both owe favors, and all decisions of true importance would have played out exactly the same way.
Why would anybody expect that? That's not what they do.
They are there to mop up the mess after the fact, and to fill out the paperwork so you can make an insurance claim.
If you ever find yourself in immediate danger and expect protection from the police, I suspect that you will find their response time to be a rather rude awakening.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I find it interesting that so many are willing to sacrifice MY freedom in the interests of THEIR (illusion of) safety, then the safest (real safety) place I can think of would probably be an isolation cell inside a SuperMax prison. Barring any suicidal tendencies, you'd be pretty damn safe sitting in one of those rooms.
Maybe we just need to divert some tax dollars to building "safe facilities" for the cowards who think they need to be protected from all of the dangers their imaginations cook up.
The second one is clearly unacceptable. The first one? I don't know.
How can you not know? They are either both unacceptable, or they are both perfectly fine.
If you enjoy living in a free society, they are both clearly unacceptable.
If you lack confidence that you have the ability to manage your own life, and would prefer that a totalitarian regime make all of your decisions for you, then you should support the surveillance in both cases.
I suspect you posted that story in support of LPR systems, but all it did was to make me naseous at the flagrant disregard for individual rights in a free society.
Sure, arson and theft are "bad things", and they guy deserves to face justice for the offenses.
But do we really want offenders apprehended "at all costs"? What price is too high?
I would prefer that he go free rather than to live in a world where these means of apprehending him are common. And yes, even if that means that I become on of his victims one day.
but I did say you should not privacy when driving a government registered vehicle on government maintained roads and bridges while in possession of your government issued license.
That's already WAY too much government bullshit already. I would say that they need to get the fuck out of our business, not get more into it.
I guess you also expect to fly in a plane anonymously, and cash your paycheck anonymously as well.
I see zero reason why either of those things should be a problem.
The media as "public watchdog" is a myth. There may have been a time when that perception had some truth behind it, but those days are long since over. The primary function of the media in today's world is to serve as the government's primary propaganda outlet.
I don't want to downplay individual security and privacy concerns, but the article is clearly biased. There are no examples of crimes being prevented, yet ti is clear that many are. Without a balanced picture, how can any reasonable person form a reasoned judgment?
I would argue that it simply doesn't matter how many crimes were prevented, or of what type. There are certain prices that are simply too high to pay, and loss of freedom and privacy is one. This technology crosses the line where it is in itself far worse than anything it might prevent.
I have ZERO problem with a law against running red lights. Nor do I have a problem with the fact that I am expected to obey said law. I also don't consider having to stop for them to be any particular inconvenience. Sure, there are occasions where they seem to last far longer than necessary, but all in all it's pretty easy to conceptualize why they are necessary, and how society functions more smoothly with them than we would without them.
What I do have a HUGE FUCKING PROBLEM with is a method of "enforcement" designed not to keep people safe, or keep traffic running smoothly, but to raise revenue by gaming the system. (And, quite likely, to grossly invade our privacy by tracking people's movements.)
But no, simple minded fools like yourself can't comprehend that a rule being necessary does NOT automatically mean that any and every method of enforcement is justified. If I oppose executing people for jaywalking, that does NOT mean that I support jaywalking.
Why can't morons like you understand that this is NOT about "the right to run red lights"?
My worldview is based on experience, education, and intelligence.
Experience? Maybe. Education? Sure. Your worldview definitely seems consistent with that of someone who has spent too much time immersed in the fantasy-land of academia, rather than in the real world. Intelligence? I have my doubts, since you think your long winded arguments are a sufficient substitute for providing a single example. They're not.
No need, I've been following politics for (most likely) longer than you've been alive.
Had the federal government accomplished anything beneficial to society in recent decades, I would be aware of it. They simply haven't done so. Due in no small part, I'm sure, that they haven't tried. Their primary goal and intention is to benefit themselves, and their corporate donors. THAT they have done an amazing job of.
Because we don't need fucking cameras monitoring us every moment of our lives!
If it's not important enough for a real, live cop to write up a citation and hand it to the offender personally, then it's not important enough to enforce!
The government really needs to learn their place. And their place is NOT micromanaging every little detail of our lives.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps not.
But yanking the Google Glass off of her face, dropping it to the ground, and stomping it into a twisted, useless jumble of tangled metal? Don't see a problem with that.
Economic support from the government supports your right to try something economically risky. It supports your right to start a business without risking your children's dinner.
Those aren't "rights", dumbass.
I'm assuming that was a rhetorical question?
To keep tapping these mediums is beyond pointless.
You're assuming that terrorists are what they're looking for.
that the watchdogs are rewarded with more power for not doing their jobs.
Actually, they were rewarded for doing their jobs masterfully. "Their job" is to exercise the power they currently hold, while seizing more at every opportunity.
The whole spiel about protecting the public is just the sales pitch that is offered to get the public to accept their existence and actions.
Assert all you want. You're still wrong.
I did believe that Romney would have made it worse.
Hopefully by now you've realized that he wouldn't have.
The political theater that plays out in the media is all but irrelevant. The particular individual that lands in office is all but irrelevant.
The agenda of the real decision makers moves forward regardless of those trivialities. Sure, some irrelevant details may have been different in one way or another, but nothing of any long term importance. The differences would have been part of the theatrics that are played out for the public to keep us distracted.
You don't rise to a position of power in our political system without owing favors that must be repaid. Obama, Romney.... Wouldn't matter. They'd both owe favors, and all decisions of true importance would have played out exactly the same way.
What part in particular? Is there any instance where surveillance alone caused actual measurable harm?
Every instance. Deprivation of privacy is an assault on basic human dignity.
[citation needed]
The complete history of humanity.
Study it.
What? You expected POLICE to help you?
Why would anybody expect that? That's not what they do.
They are there to mop up the mess after the fact, and to fill out the paperwork so you can make an insurance claim.
If you ever find yourself in immediate danger and expect protection from the police, I suspect that you will find their response time to be a rather rude awakening.
How so?
How is surveillance, in itself, harmful?
If you don't know the answer to that question, then you've either not studied history or aren't capable of comprehending it.
Being spied upon is damaging, in and of itself.
the question of whether government surveillance is a bad thing.
There is no question.
Government surveillance is more harmful than anything it might conceivably be used to prevent.
What they want is to eliminate people's rights by cutting any kind of economic support the government has for its citizens.
WTF???
You don't have any "right" to economic support. You have the "right" to get the fuck up off your lazy ass, go to work, and support your own damn self.
Economic support from the government doesn't protect anyone's rights, it invariably curtails them.
What utter crap - your statements that certain races behave in certain ways is by its very nature racist.
The observation was that different CULTURES behave in different ways.
And it's not a racist observation. It's an inescapable one.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I find it interesting that so many are willing to sacrifice MY freedom in the interests of THEIR (illusion of) safety, then the safest (real safety) place I can think of would probably be an isolation cell inside a SuperMax prison. Barring any suicidal tendencies, you'd be pretty damn safe sitting in one of those rooms.
Maybe we just need to divert some tax dollars to building "safe facilities" for the cowards who think they need to be protected from all of the dangers their imaginations cook up.
The second one is clearly unacceptable. The first one? I don't know.
How can you not know? They are either both unacceptable, or they are both perfectly fine.
If you enjoy living in a free society, they are both clearly unacceptable.
If you lack confidence that you have the ability to manage your own life, and would prefer that a totalitarian regime make all of your decisions for you, then you should support the surveillance in both cases.
I suspect you posted that story in support of LPR systems, but all it did was to make me naseous at the flagrant disregard for individual rights in a free society.
Sure, arson and theft are "bad things", and they guy deserves to face justice for the offenses.
But do we really want offenders apprehended "at all costs"? What price is too high?
I would prefer that he go free rather than to live in a world where these means of apprehending him are common. And yes, even if that means that I become on of his victims one day.
but I did say you should not privacy when driving a government registered vehicle on government maintained roads and bridges while in possession of your government issued license.
That's already WAY too much government bullshit already. I would say that they need to get the fuck out of our business, not get more into it.
I guess you also expect to fly in a plane anonymously, and cash your paycheck anonymously as well.
I see zero reason why either of those things should be a problem.
The media as "public watchdog" is a myth. There may have been a time when that perception had some truth behind it, but those days are long since over. The primary function of the media in today's world is to serve as the government's primary propaganda outlet.
I don't want to downplay individual security and privacy concerns, but the article is clearly biased. There are no examples of crimes being prevented, yet ti is clear that many are. Without a balanced picture, how can any reasonable person form a reasoned judgment?
I would argue that it simply doesn't matter how many crimes were prevented, or of what type. There are certain prices that are simply too high to pay, and loss of freedom and privacy is one. This technology crosses the line where it is in itself far worse than anything it might prevent.
I have ZERO problem with a law against running red lights. Nor do I have a problem with the fact that I am expected to obey said law. I also don't consider having to stop for them to be any particular inconvenience. Sure, there are occasions where they seem to last far longer than necessary, but all in all it's pretty easy to conceptualize why they are necessary, and how society functions more smoothly with them than we would without them.
What I do have a HUGE FUCKING PROBLEM with is a method of "enforcement" designed not to keep people safe, or keep traffic running smoothly, but to raise revenue by gaming the system. (And, quite likely, to grossly invade our privacy by tracking people's movements.)
But no, simple minded fools like yourself can't comprehend that a rule being necessary does NOT automatically mean that any and every method of enforcement is justified. If I oppose executing people for jaywalking, that does NOT mean that I support jaywalking.
Why can't morons like you understand that this is NOT about "the right to run red lights"?
My worldview is based on experience, education, and intelligence.
Experience? Maybe.
Education? Sure. Your worldview definitely seems consistent with that of someone who has spent too much time immersed in the fantasy-land of academia, rather than in the real world.
Intelligence? I have my doubts, since you think your long winded arguments are a sufficient substitute for providing a single example. They're not.
No need, I've been following politics for (most likely) longer than you've been alive.
Had the federal government accomplished anything beneficial to society in recent decades, I would be aware of it. They simply haven't done so. Due in no small part, I'm sure, that they haven't tried. Their primary goal and intention is to benefit themselves, and their corporate donors. THAT they have done an amazing job of.
In other words, you couldn't think of anything, either.
Because we don't need fucking cameras monitoring us every moment of our lives!
If it's not important enough for a real, live cop to write up a citation and hand it to the offender personally, then it's not important enough to enforce!
The government really needs to learn their place. And their place is NOT micromanaging every little detail of our lives.