However, people are skeptical that this will make little difference in the amount of pirated movies available.
So they believe that it will make a large difference? Or did you mean to say, "...people are skeptical, and believe that this will make little difference..." I know I'll get flamed for this, but I'm really just trying to help people communicate better. No insult intended.
Ok well, I can understand not giving out specific details about the tech in the game. That wasn't what I was talking about. I'm thinking things like names, general plots, hell, even just a genre. But thanks for the reply, it was well thought out and very true, if not specifically applicable to my comment.
...Now without even a name or description! Why waste time making up a name, story, and rigged-up screenshots for your new vaporware? Just claim that you're working on something new, but it's so new and revolutionary you can't talk about it! No hassles with release dates or feature lists...those id guys really ARE geniuses.
1. Vaporize the terrorists with beam weapons 2. Seduce the beautiful but deadly female terrorist leader and turn her to your cause 3. Send the beautiful but tough female noncom to blow them all up without needing one of those stupid 'men' to help (but she does get the sensitive, understanding, but also handsome guy she wants, of course, she just doesn't NEED him) 4. Upload a virus into the terrorists' mothership and bring it down 5. Expose the terrorists to simple bacteria, which their alien metabolisms can't handle 6. Ask for the Big Gun instead of the Good Package
And that would have what to do with anything? I'm sorry, how 'distraught' could you POSSIBLY be because you got kicked out of MySpace? I would expect an English major to be able to spell 'myself' even under the worst of circumstances, especially in a formal communication to a business. Hell, I'd expect a fifth-grader to be able to spell 'myself' in a formal communication. Of course, neither my expectations nor my approval matter a whit, so it's really all academic anyway. Yeah, bad pun.
Well, TFA referred to her as a 'college senior' at one point and 'an English major' at another. I would HOPE (but not expect) that a currently matriculating English major would be able to spell 'myself'. I don't think it would be too much to ask that she understand basic sentence structure as well. Apparently my views aren't shared by the faculty of her college. Then again, I suppose the article never said she was passing her classes...an obvious loophole I hadn't thought of.
You know, I despise the Libertarians around here who screech incessantly about a "nanny state", but think about what you're saying.
Ok...let's think.
The reason for laws mandating that bartenders cut people off is because excessive alcohol causes violence, DUI, etc.
First of all: alcohol doesn't cause anything. It may impair abilities, but it is not a determinant. Violent people cause violence. Irresponsible drivers cause DUIs. You seem to believe that people's actions are determined by third parties. They are not. While they may be influenced, they are determined by the actual person commiting the action. Final responsibility MUST rest with the individual except in cases of mental incapacity (which is difficult enough to determine sometimes).
Now, as to the bartender's fault, why do you believe that it is somehow better for a third party to determine your limit than for you to do so and stay within it? How would the bartender know when you're too drunk?
Age requirements on tobacco are a way of deterring cigarette companies from advertising to kids who haven't developed critical thinking skills, and getting them physically addicted to a drug.
There would be nothing preventing a store from setting their own policy. What about parents that know SO LITTLE about their own children that they can't tell when their children are physically addicted to an expensive, smelly substance? Why push the burden of enforcement, along with the corresponding burden of punishment, to the vendors? Why can't it be the responsibility of the parents? Don't the kids have to get the money for the things they buy somewhere?
They're to prevent people (and businesses) from hurting other people.
Well, then, why are there no laws against selling fatty food? Why not just go all the way and assign a government monitor to every house to make sure no one ever hurts anyone with anything? Laws do not equal morality. They never will. If you doubt me, look to the number of drug users in prison. They all knew that what they were doing was illegal.
I do honestly laud your desire to hold people accountable, I just believe you're holding the wrong people accountable. It ALL comes back to personal responsibility.
You're under a misapprehension. I did not call a local dispatcher. I called the non-emergency number and was transferred to the department they have set up to handle these types of complaints. The impression I got was one of lip service but nothing is actually done. Perhaps if the infraction were more major, something would have been done. I don't know. I just know that there is a department in the police department that is paid to do something about these kinds of things, and in my experience they do not. I don't think a story in the greensheet is going to do anything, and the only other paper in my town is not interested. I would like to set up a web site or something where people can post pictures like this, but I don't have the time or resources at the moment. It's on my list of thing to do, though, along with a 'jerkass driver' site where you can post videos of crappy drivers.
There's no expressly written 'out' in the Constitution. The 'out' is implied, in that the Union had to be ratified by the 'sovereign' states, and a state that can't choose to leave the union it chose to join is certainly not 'sovereign'. That's pretty much the argument that the Supreme Court used against my home state, Texas, declaring that the union is 'indestructable' and Texas did not have the power to leave. Again, though, the Constitution does not anywhere expressly state that states may NOT leave the union, and considering that the rest of the tone of the document is, 'unless it's specifically prohibited, it's allowed' certainly doesn't support the 'indestructable union' theory. The reality is that federal trumps state even though the 'union' was designed the other way 'round. I'm not arguing that it ISN'T that way. I'm just saying it SHOULDN'T be that way.
Perhaps they'll be seen as the alternative to the 'crappy wal-mart computer'. I am not saying they will, but it's possible. Not everything sold at wal-mart is crap, even though wal-mart IS a crappy company and many wal-mart employees are treated like crap. I'm sad to see it happen, but maybe the experiment will fail.
Not to repeat myself too much, but the reason the Southron states seceded was because they were not being allowed to excercise the right to self-government that they were accorded when they joined the union, among many other economic and political reasons. When anyone tries to tell me that state's rights still exist, the war of northern aggression proved once and for all that federal > state...which wasn't how the Union was originally sold. Slavery was the flashpoint, but it could have been any one of a number of other issues.
Disclaimer: I DO NOT condone the tradition or practice of slavery. I am against slavery, both that of the past (worldwide), and that of the present (mostly 'wage-slavery' in the U.S. and elsewhere)
First of all, while there were broader tensions between north and south, it was the issue of slavery (mostly whether to allow slavery in new territories/states) the drove the South to secede.
Well, since we're digging deeper, it would be better to say that slavery was the issue which forced the discussion of state's rights over which the South seceded. The South seceded because they felt the Union was a loose collection of several mostly independant states, while the Northern states believed the Union superceded the states which were in it. The fact that there was a war to FORCE states to remain in the Union proves that the South's concerns were valid. Of course, this IN NO WAY means that they were correct for supporting slavery.
It was fought to keep the South in the Union, but the South never would have left if not for slavery.
I believe you're wrong here. The South was already upset about many things, not the least of which was the tax burden placed upon the South by the North and the fact that although most things were refined/processed in the North, most (much? I don't know exactly but it was more than 'some' and less than 'all') raw materials (cotton, tobacco, corn, metal ore, etc) came from the South. Then, refined goods were sold in the South at enormous profit. Basically, many things MAY have lead to secession eventually, however slavery was the flashpoint.
As for Lincoln's own views, he was staunchly, if not radically, anti-slavery throughout his political career.
Perhaps, but what I was attempting to illustrate with his quote was that regardless of his personal views on slavery he would have been willing to let it continue if it preserved the union. Just pointing out that preservation of the Union (and the Southern tax revenue and raw material base) easily and continually trumped his abolitionist views. He wasn't the Devil, but he wasn't obsessed with abolition, either.
My basic point is this: if the Union was voluntarily formed (it was), why could not the member states leave whenever they wanted? It would be like being forced at gunpoint to continue a trading relationship with, say, OPEC, even though you have written an out into your contract and have met the conditions to excercise it. Basically, we have a long history of fighting unpopular wars for monetary reasons. I am just against the movement to categorize the war of northern aggression as 'the war to free the slaves'.
You're still BREAKING the law. You're just not getting PUNISHED for it. That doesn't mean that you haven't broken the law. Sorry. While I *might* agree that cops should get away with breaking some laws in extraordinary circumstances, I will *never* concede that they should break the law as not only a matter of course, but a requirement for their position. It is wrong. Period.
Take a picture, send it to a local newspaper, and see what happens...
I tried actually calling the police non-emergency number and have reported it directly many times. The result? None, as far as I can tell. I also doubt that newspapers and tv stations would report 'unimportant' violations such as those. However, it's the mindset that is the problem, and continuing to allow cops to break laws will only compound the problem. Imagine what it will be like when more and more things are ignored in this manner, such as the locations where police brutality is the norm.
Your complain about 2 million pages of law can hardly be directed at cops.
It wasn't. However, it was directed at the same system that treats cops as above the law. It isn't police themselves with which I have a problem. It is the manner in which their routine violations of laws that normal citizens are locked up for violating every day are treated as normal that bothers me.
Here's something to think about. This is a direct quote from Abraham Lincoln himself.
The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was."... My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
Don't forget that the North was almost totally dependant upon the South for food and raw materials to process. Teaching that it was all, or primarily, about slavery is teaching revisionist history. Sorry.
I think the only reason you're mad is because you're afraid of the same thing happening to you. I'm not. WTF do I care if you say, 'you're welcome' at the end of your post? You must be really insecure if something like that bothers you. You know, avoiding logging in is a wuss move. I don't care what your rationalizations are. They don't call them anonymous cowards because they're brave. The system here is working as intended. Logging in is what confident people do. Posting AC is what insecure assholes do. That's really not close to all I have to say on the subject, but that's all you're getting. Anyone who only has ONE thing to say on a subject is unintelligent, ignorant, or at the very least unimaginative. Congrats on being all three! Oh, and you're welcome.
Why did you put 'break' in quotes? Taking drugs is against the law. Committing assault is against the law. Just because a cop is not punished for breaking the law does not mean that they are not breaking it. I do not accept that cops are somehow better than average people. They should not get freedom from prosecution for things which ordinary people do. Cops around here turn on their sirens ALL THE TIME to go through red lights, then turn them back off. Sure, they're ALL 'on the way to a call' every time. And when they park in the handicapped spots or fire lanes at the grocery store, I'm sure it just LOOKS like they're shopping. They're actually performing some important law enforcement. Whatever. I never said the primary motivation for becoming a cop was greed. I simply said that low salaries would tend to INCREASE the tendency to benefit rather than DECREASE it as you implied. I believe the primary motivation for becoming a cop is to exert control over others without getting sanctioned for it. Police have FAR too much power and freedom to break the law. Why do we need 2 million pages of law? Are we really that horrible of people by default that we need hundreds of millions of words of law? We have gone too far. Police should enforce law, which means solving crimes and preventing the ones they happen to see. Life will always involve risks. If you don't like that, too bad. Having cops be above the law is bad for society in general. If you can't see that, then I hope you get taken to a re-education camp in the future.
You forgot to mention the reprehensible practice of grading caseworkers based on 'child saves' which just means removing a child from his/her parents. There are some cities where bonuses are awarded per case and some where they are awarded quarterly and some where they are just quota-ed and not given bonuses at all. Such utter crap and totally the wrong model to use.
True. I just find it hilarious that our government could be SO anti-communist during the '50s while at the same exact time incorporating so many elements of communism into that very same government. Not that they were doing it to BE communist nor to reflect communist ideals or anything. Sorry for the confusion.
I see what you did there. Completely ignore my point while substituting your own for it, and then concede your own point as mine. Too bad you're wrong. No one was taking pictures up anyone's skirt. Nice strawman, though. Your argument is the same as those who claim airport security is illegal. If you don't want to submit to it, don't fly. pretty simple. If you don't want your picture taken, don't leave your house. If you leave your house, your picture might be taken and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Want protection from being photographed? Don't go outside. Want to go outside? You must accept some risks. It might rain, you might get sunburned, you may step in mud, you may be photographed. That's just the way it is.
You were doing really well, and I agreed for the vast majority with your sentiment, right up until your left-field dig involving the Communist Manifesto. Have you ever read the thing?
Well, had I not read it, how would I know its contents? Here is plank 10 quoted directly from the source(emphasis mine)
"10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc"
Yes, I was being tongue-in-cheek, but really, here's a quote from one of the biggest champions of public schooling ever, Horace Mann: "'Our common schools . . . reach, with more or less directness and intensity, all the children belonging to the State,--children who are soon to be the State.'"
That's pretty much the attitude of 'real' (as opposed to idealistic) communists, isn't it? That all belong to the State. Actually, here, let me do the following: here are the 10 planks given in the communist manifesto. I'm not going to tell you how many of them we incorporate into our government. I'll let you do that yourself. Note that I'm not indicating whether I agree with this document or our government, and I'm not saying I don't. I'm just sayin'.
"Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc."
Did you mean, "Learn to talk n00b," as in a command to go out and find out how to speak a language called n00b, or did you mean, "Learn to talk, n00b," as in a command to a n00b to learn how to talk? Punctuation: the Rodney Dangerfield of grammar.
Slashdot Mirror
However, people are skeptical that this will make little difference in the amount of pirated movies available.
So they believe that it will make a large difference? Or did you mean to say, "...people are skeptical, and believe that this will make little difference..." I know I'll get flamed for this, but I'm really just trying to help people communicate better. No insult intended.
Ok well, I can understand not giving out specific details about the tech in the game. That wasn't what I was talking about. I'm thinking things like names, general plots, hell, even just a genre. But thanks for the reply, it was well thought out and very true, if not specifically applicable to my comment.
...Now without even a name or description! Why waste time making up a name, story, and rigged-up screenshots for your new vaporware? Just claim that you're working on something new, but it's so new and revolutionary you can't talk about it! No hassles with release dates or feature lists...those id guys really ARE geniuses.
"Mr. Carmack, how's your new game?"
"People will bow to it."
1. Vaporize the terrorists with beam weapons
2. Seduce the beautiful but deadly female terrorist leader and turn her to your cause
3. Send the beautiful but tough female noncom to blow them all up without needing one of those stupid 'men' to help (but she does get the sensitive, understanding, but also handsome guy she wants, of course, she just doesn't NEED him)
4. Upload a virus into the terrorists' mothership and bring it down
5. Expose the terrorists to simple bacteria, which their alien metabolisms can't handle
6. Ask for the Big Gun instead of the Good Package
And that would have what to do with anything? I'm sorry, how 'distraught' could you POSSIBLY be because you got kicked out of MySpace? I would expect an English major to be able to spell 'myself' even under the worst of circumstances, especially in a formal communication to a business. Hell, I'd expect a fifth-grader to be able to spell 'myself' in a formal communication. Of course, neither my expectations nor my approval matter a whit, so it's really all academic anyway. Yeah, bad pun.
Well, TFA referred to her as a 'college senior' at one point and 'an English major' at another. I would HOPE (but not expect) that a currently matriculating English major would be able to spell 'myself'. I don't think it would be too much to ask that she understand basic sentence structure as well. Apparently my views aren't shared by the faculty of her college. Then again, I suppose the article never said she was passing her classes...an obvious loophole I hadn't thought of.
...and she doesn't know how to spell 'myself' or construct a proper sentence? Yep, par for the course. Money well spent.
You know, I despise the Libertarians around here who screech incessantly about a "nanny state", but think about what you're saying.
Ok...let's think.
The reason for laws mandating that bartenders cut people off is because excessive alcohol causes violence, DUI, etc.
First of all: alcohol doesn't cause anything. It may impair abilities, but it is not a determinant. Violent people cause violence. Irresponsible drivers cause DUIs. You seem to believe that people's actions are determined by third parties. They are not. While they may be influenced, they are determined by the actual person commiting the action. Final responsibility MUST rest with the individual except in cases of mental incapacity (which is difficult enough to determine sometimes).
Now, as to the bartender's fault, why do you believe that it is somehow better for a third party to determine your limit than for you to do so and stay within it? How would the bartender know when you're too drunk?
Age requirements on tobacco are a way of deterring cigarette companies from advertising to kids who haven't developed critical thinking skills, and getting them physically addicted to a drug.
There would be nothing preventing a store from setting their own policy. What about parents that know SO LITTLE about their own children that they can't tell when their children are physically addicted to an expensive, smelly substance? Why push the burden of enforcement, along with the corresponding burden of punishment, to the vendors? Why can't it be the responsibility of the parents? Don't the kids have to get the money for the things they buy somewhere?
They're to prevent people (and businesses) from hurting other people.
Well, then, why are there no laws against selling fatty food? Why not just go all the way and assign a government monitor to every house to make sure no one ever hurts anyone with anything? Laws do not equal morality. They never will. If you doubt me, look to the number of drug users in prison. They all knew that what they were doing was illegal.
I do honestly laud your desire to hold people accountable, I just believe you're holding the wrong people accountable. It ALL comes back to personal responsibility.
It appears I misunderstood the poster I was responding to. My mistake.
Personal responsibility: something more rare on slashdot than good spelling.
Nice false dillema you've got there.
It's spelled 'dilemma', and I think you were looking for the word 'dichotomy'.
I'm fairly sure that most of the recipients of welfare aren't included in what you're describing.
How many do you know?
Man, some of you people have such amazing knee-jerk reactions...
As Homer Simpson said, "The ironing is delicious!"
Has anyone reported any earth tremors near Wolvercote Cemetary? If so, are there any plans to re-bury Mr. Tolkien in a spin-proof coffin?
You're under a misapprehension. I did not call a local dispatcher. I called the non-emergency number and was transferred to the department they have set up to handle these types of complaints. The impression I got was one of lip service but nothing is actually done. Perhaps if the infraction were more major, something would have been done. I don't know. I just know that there is a department in the police department that is paid to do something about these kinds of things, and in my experience they do not. I don't think a story in the greensheet is going to do anything, and the only other paper in my town is not interested. I would like to set up a web site or something where people can post pictures like this, but I don't have the time or resources at the moment. It's on my list of thing to do, though, along with a 'jerkass driver' site where you can post videos of crappy drivers.
There's no expressly written 'out' in the Constitution. The 'out' is implied, in that the Union had to be ratified by the 'sovereign' states, and a state that can't choose to leave the union it chose to join is certainly not 'sovereign'. That's pretty much the argument that the Supreme Court used against my home state, Texas, declaring that the union is 'indestructable' and Texas did not have the power to leave. Again, though, the Constitution does not anywhere expressly state that states may NOT leave the union, and considering that the rest of the tone of the document is, 'unless it's specifically prohibited, it's allowed' certainly doesn't support the 'indestructable union' theory. The reality is that federal trumps state even though the 'union' was designed the other way 'round. I'm not arguing that it ISN'T that way. I'm just saying it SHOULDN'T be that way.
Perhaps they'll be seen as the alternative to the 'crappy wal-mart computer'. I am not saying they will, but it's possible. Not everything sold at wal-mart is crap, even though wal-mart IS a crappy company and many wal-mart employees are treated like crap. I'm sad to see it happen, but maybe the experiment will fail.
Not to repeat myself too much, but the reason the Southron states seceded was because they were not being allowed to excercise the right to self-government that they were accorded when they joined the union, among many other economic and political reasons. When anyone tries to tell me that state's rights still exist, the war of northern aggression proved once and for all that federal > state...which wasn't how the Union was originally sold. Slavery was the flashpoint, but it could have been any one of a number of other issues.
Disclaimer: I DO NOT condone the tradition or practice of slavery. I am against slavery, both that of the past (worldwide), and that of the present (mostly 'wage-slavery' in the U.S. and elsewhere)
First of all, while there were broader tensions between north and south, it was the issue of slavery (mostly whether to allow slavery in new territories/states) the drove the South to secede.
Well, since we're digging deeper, it would be better to say that slavery was the issue which forced the discussion of state's rights over which the South seceded. The South seceded because they felt the Union was a loose collection of several mostly independant states, while the Northern states believed the Union superceded the states which were in it. The fact that there was a war to FORCE states to remain in the Union proves that the South's concerns were valid. Of course, this IN NO WAY means that they were correct for supporting slavery.
It was fought to keep the South in the Union, but the South never would have left if not for slavery.
I believe you're wrong here. The South was already upset about many things, not the least of which was the tax burden placed upon the South by the North and the fact that although most things were refined/processed in the North, most (much? I don't know exactly but it was more than 'some' and less than 'all') raw materials (cotton, tobacco, corn, metal ore, etc) came from the South. Then, refined goods were sold in the South at enormous profit. Basically, many things MAY have lead to secession eventually, however slavery was the flashpoint.
As for Lincoln's own views, he was staunchly, if not radically, anti-slavery throughout his political career.
Perhaps, but what I was attempting to illustrate with his quote was that regardless of his personal views on slavery he would have been willing to let it continue if it preserved the union. Just pointing out that preservation of the Union (and the Southern tax revenue and raw material base) easily and continually trumped his abolitionist views. He wasn't the Devil, but he wasn't obsessed with abolition, either.
My basic point is this: if the Union was voluntarily formed (it was), why could not the member states leave whenever they wanted? It would be like being forced at gunpoint to continue a trading relationship with, say, OPEC, even though you have written an out into your contract and have met the conditions to excercise it. Basically, we have a long history of fighting unpopular wars for monetary reasons. I am just against the movement to categorize the war of northern aggression as 'the war to free the slaves'.
You're still BREAKING the law. You're just not getting PUNISHED for it. That doesn't mean that you haven't broken the law. Sorry.
While I *might* agree that cops should get away with breaking some laws in extraordinary circumstances, I will *never* concede that they should break the law as not only a matter of course, but a requirement for their position. It is wrong. Period.
Take a picture, send it to a local newspaper, and see what happens...
I tried actually calling the police non-emergency number and have reported it directly many times. The result? None, as far as I can tell. I also doubt that newspapers and tv stations would report 'unimportant' violations such as those. However, it's the mindset that is the problem, and continuing to allow cops to break laws will only compound the problem. Imagine what it will be like when more and more things are ignored in this manner, such as the locations where police brutality is the norm.
Your complain about 2 million pages of law can hardly be directed at cops.
It wasn't. However, it was directed at the same system that treats cops as above the law. It isn't police themselves with which I have a problem. It is the manner in which their routine violations of laws that normal citizens are locked up for violating every day are treated as normal that bothers me.
Here's something to think about. This is a direct quote from Abraham Lincoln himself.
... My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was."
Don't forget that the North was almost totally dependant upon the South for food and raw materials to process. Teaching that it was all, or primarily, about slavery is teaching revisionist history. Sorry.
I think the only reason you're mad is because you're afraid of the same thing happening to you. I'm not. WTF do I care if you say, 'you're welcome' at the end of your post? You must be really insecure if something like that bothers you.
You know, avoiding logging in is a wuss move. I don't care what your rationalizations are. They don't call them anonymous cowards because they're brave. The system here is working as intended. Logging in is what confident people do. Posting AC is what insecure assholes do.
That's really not close to all I have to say on the subject, but that's all you're getting. Anyone who only has ONE thing to say on a subject is unintelligent, ignorant, or at the very least unimaginative. Congrats on being all three! Oh, and you're welcome.
Why did you put 'break' in quotes? Taking drugs is against the law. Committing assault is against the law. Just because a cop is not punished for breaking the law does not mean that they are not breaking it. I do not accept that cops are somehow better than average people. They should not get freedom from prosecution for things which ordinary people do. Cops around here turn on their sirens ALL THE TIME to go through red lights, then turn them back off. Sure, they're ALL 'on the way to a call' every time. And when they park in the handicapped spots or fire lanes at the grocery store, I'm sure it just LOOKS like they're shopping. They're actually performing some important law enforcement. Whatever. I never said the primary motivation for becoming a cop was greed. I simply said that low salaries would tend to INCREASE the tendency to benefit rather than DECREASE it as you implied. I believe the primary motivation for becoming a cop is to exert control over others without getting sanctioned for it. Police have FAR too much power and freedom to break the law. Why do we need 2 million pages of law? Are we really that horrible of people by default that we need hundreds of millions of words of law? We have gone too far. Police should enforce law, which means solving crimes and preventing the ones they happen to see. Life will always involve risks. If you don't like that, too bad. Having cops be above the law is bad for society in general. If you can't see that, then I hope you get taken to a re-education camp in the future.
You forgot to mention the reprehensible practice of grading caseworkers based on 'child saves' which just means removing a child from his/her parents. There are some cities where bonuses are awarded per case and some where they are awarded quarterly and some where they are just quota-ed and not given bonuses at all. Such utter crap and totally the wrong model to use.
True. I just find it hilarious that our government could be SO anti-communist during the '50s while at the same exact time incorporating so many elements of communism into that very same government. Not that they were doing it to BE communist nor to reflect communist ideals or anything. Sorry for the confusion.
I see what you did there. Completely ignore my point while substituting your own for it, and then concede your own point as mine. Too bad you're wrong. No one was taking pictures up anyone's skirt. Nice strawman, though. Your argument is the same as those who claim airport security is illegal. If you don't want to submit to it, don't fly. pretty simple. If you don't want your picture taken, don't leave your house. If you leave your house, your picture might be taken and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Want protection from being photographed? Don't go outside. Want to go outside? You must accept some risks. It might rain, you might get sunburned, you may step in mud, you may be photographed. That's just the way it is.
remarkibly
Did you mean 'remarkably'?
You were doing really well, and I agreed for the vast majority with your sentiment, right up until your left-field dig involving the Communist Manifesto. Have you ever read the thing?
Well, had I not read it, how would I know its contents? Here is plank 10 quoted directly from the source(emphasis mine)
"10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc"
Yes, I was being tongue-in-cheek, but really, here's a quote from one of the biggest champions of public schooling ever, Horace Mann: "'Our common schools . . . reach, with more or less directness and intensity, all the children belonging to the State,--children who are soon to be the State.'"
That's pretty much the attitude of 'real' (as opposed to idealistic) communists, isn't it? That all belong to the State. Actually, here, let me do the following: here are the 10 planks given in the communist manifesto. I'm not going to tell you how many of them we incorporate into our government. I'll let you do that yourself. Note that I'm not indicating whether I agree with this document or our government, and I'm not saying I don't. I'm just sayin'.
"Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc."
Did you mean, "Learn to talk n00b," as in a command to go out and find out how to speak a language called n00b, or did you mean, "Learn to talk, n00b," as in a command to a n00b to learn how to talk?
Punctuation: the Rodney Dangerfield of grammar.