You may have had dealings with libertines, who, in my experience, tend to misidentify themselves as libertarians. Besides, why make the distinction between 'economic libertarians' (aka right-wingers, republicans, etc) and social libertarians (aka left-wingers, democrats, etc)? TRUE libertarians are both. That's kinda the whole point of, you know, calling them 'libertarians'. And yes, I realize that neo-cons are neither social NOR economic libertarians. But that's a while 'nother ball of wax.
I use 3G and I haven't had any battery problems. Is it a device limitation, or is my phone an anomoly, or does it just have a good battery, or what? I always hear people knocking 3G and I've just never had any problems with it. Of course, this is month 3 of my experience with 3G, so maybe the bad times are ahead. I'm going to hope not, though.
If we didn't enforce the law until it was broken, where would we be?
Not in Minority Report? In a sane society? America of the past?
"We're arresting you for the future crime of terrorism."
"But I haven't done anything!"
"Not yet. But you will. Or would have, that is. Chalk up another dangerous terrorist neutralized."
Prevention is a large part of maintaining order in a society, and that's exactly what security at an airport is.
Prevention is a pipe dream. Remember, there was airport security on 9/11, too. Also, even at the height of the scare, a college student was able to get a gun on a plane undetected. I'm sure terrorists could do the same. Not to mention the fact that PERIMETER security is much worse, and that's where the planes are.
In my first example, I have a reason to suspect the person reading that book.
Of what? Literacy? Do you REALLY, HONESTLY believe that a terrorist intent on carrying out some sort of plot is going to be sitting around reading, "How to Blow Up A Plane for Jihadists"? All you're doing is wasting time and effort and subjecting people who have done NOTHING WRONG to unnecessary hassle. How does that help security?
If you disagree, then you're still perfectly free to roam the country, just not on a plane. As far as I know, we have no inherent right to air travel.
When the government uses MY money to prop up the airlines, I should be able to use them without all this hassle. Otherwise, stop spending MY money on them. Of course, that applies to most government spending, which should either be done away with or converted to a user-fee system. However, I have not flown since they started making you take your shoes off. That was the last straw for me. I'd rather ride a bus.
Your first statement interested me, since you clearly believe that there are limits as to what you can bring through security.
Not really. I just believe that someone bringing a gun or a bomb onto a plane would be a reasonable person to watch for trouble. Not a person with a book.
You prove there that you inherently believe in the prevention of crimes through the restriction of weaponry, even though a firearm is a perfectly legal item.
No, you're building sand castles on air, here. I don't have any problem with people carrying firearms on a plane. Yes, that's right, I said it. HOWEVER, if you're going to watch people for trouble, it makes a lot more sense to me to watch for people with guns, rather than people with books (or "offensive" clothing, weird hairstyles, etc)
You're clearly not outraged at that restriction. Can you explain the difference as you see it?
First, I'm not "outraged" by any of the restrictions. Majorly annoyed, maybe. Second of all, there is no difference. In neither case would I advocate DOING ANYTHING to the person until they actually broke the law, or at the very least attempted to. I don't think reading can ever be classified in that category.
Finally, you need to relax. Personally attacking me isn't helping this debate, especially since I've done nothing to attack you.
Er, no. I'm perfectly relaxed. Perhaps you should tone your paranoia down a bit. If you think that my post was "attacking" you, you should probably take your own advice re: relaxing.
Did passenger also board with guns or bombs? If yes, your security is shit anyway. If no, then why not leave the guy alone until he... and I know this is a RADICAL concept here, but bear with me... does something illegal? Naw, screw that. Then you have to actually wait until the law is BROKEN before you start enforcing it. I know, I know, your next solution will be to criminalize reading, except officially approved material. Might as well, they're criminalizing anything they can get away with. By an odd coincidence, many private prison firms are having EXTREMELY good years lately....
Actually, the IRS is not under the US Department of the Treasury. Link
If you think it's fun trying to pin down the IRS's jurisdiction, try finding the definition of 'income' in the tax code, and specifically why wages qualify as 'income'.
So if a fable is based off a completely false analogy, it's still useful? I would think that what actually happens with a frog and a pan of slowly heated water would be much more instructive. It would indicate that people are going to sit in the pan until it becomes too hot, and then jump out. You could use it to either illustrate the 'out of the frying pan, into the fire' nature of popular revolt, or to scare the government with the thought that we WON'T just sit in the pan until we die. But basing your parable off a misrepresentation of reality doesn't seem like the best idea to me. It's like the ol' inspirational "Bees can't physically fly, yet they do, mind over matter, etc" parable. Sounds great, but it isn't true.
I am still trying to figure out the following: I. What was the worry?
A. Was it that he wasn't travelling with enough flashlights, as the sentence suggests?
1. If so, what number of small flashlights is best practice when travelling?
a. Does it depend upond destination?
B. Was it worry that the small number of flashlights he had were dangerous?
1. If so, WTF?!?!?!?
Here is the problem I have: refusal of service is not persecution. People who own and/or run private businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason or no reason. They should be able to refuse service due to specific races, genders, religions, hair colors, clothing styles, articles of clothing, attitude, or because they're in a bad mood. Of course, YOU are then free to boycott, run ads against, or spread negative word of mouth about that business. That's what freedom is all about. Personally, I think it would be stupid to refuse service based on religious belief or lack thereof, so I would not do that in my business. However, I *would* refuse service to anyone wearing Capri pants. Maybe then, Capri-pant-wearing people would avoid my business....but I think both sides would count that as a win. If the Man came and tried to force me to serve them, I'd burn my own business to the ground in protest. I think it's probably a good thing that I don't own my own business.
Do you mean 'solved' it as in, "Well, now we know that the man was definitely murdered" or solved as in "perpetrators identified and convicted in a court of law"? Because the former isn't useful enough to warrant the expense and the latter isn't true. For instance, now you know that someone between 5'9" and 6'4", most likely male, probably between the ages of 15 and 50, with an affinity for dark clothes, glasses, and hoodies mugged that lady. Well, case closed!
While I agree with your sentiments, you seem to be under the impression that cops want less crime, and will act in such a way as to reduce crime. Some of them may; the good ones will. However, if the cops reduce overall crime, then the police budget is reduced, officers are let go, power is lost, etc. It's like people who believe that the medical industry in general wants to cure diseases. If it did, it would take a HUGE financial hit. It doesn't make business sense. Now, I wish we lived in a world where humanitarian concerns overrode business concerns, but would you seriously suggest that we do? The prison industry doesn't experience unprecedented growth when you REDUCE crime, nor when you decriminalize things. Just use the old police trick and ask yourself, cui bono? Then follow the money.
Are you certain that 'preventing crime' is what cops should be doing? Don't get me wrong, I know it's all the rage right now. I'm just wondering when 'solving crimes' became 'crime prevention' and 'serving the public' became 'revenue generation'.
I have the solution to stop all crime in less than 20 years. Really, I do. It will work. All you need to do is institute the death penalty for any and all convictions. Of course, the downside to that is that when only the cops are left, they probably won't be able to procreate at a high enough rate to repopulate the Earth, but that's their own fault for not hiring enough female officers. So, who's with me?
This will be a wholesale raping of the American middle class, the taxpayer, the treasury, the value of the US dollar - and in 10 years, this nation will be wholly owned by foreign corporate interests.
I get it...you're posting from 10 years in the past! That's amazing!
I don't believe that statement does imply that this non-lethal (to be confirmed) device will only be used against people committing an illegal act. If an individual/s flatly refuses to comply with authourities put in place by the government they have elected (not so for all countries, obiously), then they too can expect to have this device aimed at them.
Again you are implying that the use would be valid and called for in all situations. I do not agree, and can provide much evidence of taser use against unarmed, non-dangerous people (some of whom were in diabetic seizure, and thus UNABLE to comply with any commands). Now, is it likely, in your opinion, that the documented abuse of tasers does not in any way predict the abuse of a different "less lethal" device?
You may want to revise this statement, it appears the word 'correct' may be out of context.
No, it was not. The police are NOT a disciplinary force. Let me repeat that once more. The police are NOT a disciplinary force. They are not supposed to punish criminals. That is for the courts to do. Therefore, noncompliance with authorities should be penalized by the courts, as the system was set up, and not on-the-spot vigilanteism by uniformed thugs.
Well it's a demonstratable fact that all the conflicts that the US is involved in today were started or exacerbated by small minded foreign policies of Republicans.
Really? I bet Bill Clinton would be mad at you for saying that. Besides, Democrats vote just as enthusiastically as Republicans for conflict. Here are the facts: No one makes national office in any capacity who isn't vetted. Democrats and Republicans are vetted by the same people. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no real difference between them. No matter who you vote for, it is not your interests which are being served, unless you are a large corporation or have a lot of cash for lobbying. Note that Hillary isn't talking about ending the "war". Note that NO CANDIDATE with any realistic shot is talking about ending the "war". Note also that all of the candidates who could vote for the "war" did so, minus Ron Paul, who does not have a shot. Saying that they are different is like saying that it's different to be kicked in the spleen than to be kicked in the liver. Yes, there are technical differences there. Move your perspective up just a tiny bit, though, and you'll realize that either way you're still getting kicked in the vitals.
I think if they use this on a crowd, the guy firing it might as well be Ensign Unnammed wearing a red shirt. You can't point that thing everywhere at once. I know I'm paranoid, but that would be a good excuse for martial law...
One would have to be a slow learner if one did not learn after the first or second time that continuing to do whatever illegal activity one is involved in will result in disciplinary action by authourities.
This sentence begs the most important question. You are here implying that this would ONLY be used against persons who have definitely committed illegal acts. You are also implying that the use of force by police for disciplinary purposes is correct. Do you actually believe either of these things?
Religious people often think that repeating things they cannot prove so that others may believe it is somehow not proselytizing. - You
I hope that one day you'll educate yourself enough on the matter to overcome your religious ideology. - You
At no point did I assume that you're religious. - You
Why shold I bother to go through the rest of your crap? You really thought you could lie like that when the proof is only two posts up? Seriously? Good luck with life, homey.
Slashdot Mirror
You may have had dealings with libertines, who, in my experience, tend to misidentify themselves as libertarians. Besides, why make the distinction between 'economic libertarians' (aka right-wingers, republicans, etc) and social libertarians (aka left-wingers, democrats, etc)? TRUE libertarians are both. That's kinda the whole point of, you know, calling them 'libertarians'.
And yes, I realize that neo-cons are neither social NOR economic libertarians. But that's a while 'nother ball of wax.
I use 3G and I haven't had any battery problems. Is it a device limitation, or is my phone an anomoly, or does it just have a good battery, or what? I always hear people knocking 3G and I've just never had any problems with it. Of course, this is month 3 of my experience with 3G, so maybe the bad times are ahead. I'm going to hope not, though.
I'd just post a sign that reads, "No Capri Pants allowed in store" and let them decide how to interpret it. :)
If we didn't enforce the law until it was broken, where would we be?
Not in Minority Report? In a sane society? America of the past?
"We're arresting you for the future crime of terrorism."
"But I haven't done anything!"
"Not yet. But you will. Or would have, that is. Chalk up another dangerous terrorist neutralized."
Prevention is a large part of maintaining order in a society, and that's exactly what security at an airport is.
Prevention is a pipe dream. Remember, there was airport security on 9/11, too. Also, even at the height of the scare, a college student was able to get a gun on a plane undetected. I'm sure terrorists could do the same. Not to mention the fact that PERIMETER security is much worse, and that's where the planes are.
In my first example, I have a reason to suspect the person reading that book.
Of what? Literacy? Do you REALLY, HONESTLY believe that a terrorist intent on carrying out some sort of plot is going to be sitting around reading, "How to Blow Up A Plane for Jihadists"? All you're doing is wasting time and effort and subjecting people who have done NOTHING WRONG to unnecessary hassle. How does that help security?
If you disagree, then you're still perfectly free to roam the country, just not on a plane. As far as I know, we have no inherent right to air travel.
When the government uses MY money to prop up the airlines, I should be able to use them without all this hassle. Otherwise, stop spending MY money on them. Of course, that applies to most government spending, which should either be done away with or converted to a user-fee system. However, I have not flown since they started making you take your shoes off. That was the last straw for me. I'd rather ride a bus.
Your first statement interested me, since you clearly believe that there are limits as to what you can bring through security.
Not really. I just believe that someone bringing a gun or a bomb onto a plane would be a reasonable person to watch for trouble. Not a person with a book.
You prove there that you inherently believe in the prevention of crimes through the restriction of weaponry, even though a firearm is a perfectly legal item.
No, you're building sand castles on air, here. I don't have any problem with people carrying firearms on a plane. Yes, that's right, I said it. HOWEVER, if you're going to watch people for trouble, it makes a lot more sense to me to watch for people with guns, rather than people with books (or "offensive" clothing, weird hairstyles, etc)
You're clearly not outraged at that restriction. Can you explain the difference as you see it?
First, I'm not "outraged" by any of the restrictions. Majorly annoyed, maybe. Second of all, there is no difference. In neither case would I advocate DOING ANYTHING to the person until they actually broke the law, or at the very least attempted to. I don't think reading can ever be classified in that category.
Finally, you need to relax. Personally attacking me isn't helping this debate, especially since I've done nothing to attack you.
Er, no. I'm perfectly relaxed. Perhaps you should tone your paranoia down a bit. If you think that my post was "attacking" you, you should probably take your own advice re: relaxing.
Did passenger also board with guns or bombs? If yes, your security is shit anyway. If no, then why not leave the guy alone until he... and I know this is a RADICAL concept here, but bear with me... does something illegal? Naw, screw that. Then you have to actually wait until the law is BROKEN before you start enforcing it. I know, I know, your next solution will be to criminalize reading, except officially approved material. Might as well, they're criminalizing anything they can get away with. By an odd coincidence, many private prison firms are having EXTREMELY good years lately....
Actually, the IRS is not under the US Department of the Treasury. Link
If you think it's fun trying to pin down the IRS's jurisdiction, try finding the definition of 'income' in the tax code, and specifically why wages qualify as 'income'.
I say, screw it all. Join the Apathy Party today.
I would, but I'm planning to join the Procrastinator's Party tomorrow.
So if a fable is based off a completely false analogy, it's still useful? I would think that what actually happens with a frog and a pan of slowly heated water would be much more instructive. It would indicate that people are going to sit in the pan until it becomes too hot, and then jump out. You could use it to either illustrate the 'out of the frying pan, into the fire' nature of popular revolt, or to scare the government with the thought that we WON'T just sit in the pan until we die. But basing your parable off a misrepresentation of reality doesn't seem like the best idea to me. It's like the ol' inspirational "Bees can't physically fly, yet they do, mind over matter, etc" parable. Sounds great, but it isn't true.
I am still trying to figure out the following:
I. What was the worry?
A. Was it that he wasn't travelling with enough flashlights, as the sentence suggests?
1. If so, what number of small flashlights is best practice when travelling?
a. Does it depend upond destination?
B. Was it worry that the small number of flashlights he had were dangerous?
1. If so, WTF?!?!?!?
Here is the problem I have: refusal of service is not persecution. People who own and/or run private businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason or no reason. They should be able to refuse service due to specific races, genders, religions, hair colors, clothing styles, articles of clothing, attitude, or because they're in a bad mood. Of course, YOU are then free to boycott, run ads against, or spread negative word of mouth about that business. That's what freedom is all about. Personally, I think it would be stupid to refuse service based on religious belief or lack thereof, so I would not do that in my business. However, I *would* refuse service to anyone wearing Capri pants. Maybe then, Capri-pant-wearing people would avoid my business....but I think both sides would count that as a win. If the Man came and tried to force me to serve them, I'd burn my own business to the ground in protest. I think it's probably a good thing that I don't own my own business.
Do you mean 'solved' it as in, "Well, now we know that the man was definitely murdered" or solved as in "perpetrators identified and convicted in a court of law"? Because the former isn't useful enough to warrant the expense and the latter isn't true.
For instance, now you know that someone between 5'9" and 6'4", most likely male, probably between the ages of 15 and 50, with an affinity for dark clothes, glasses, and hoodies mugged that lady. Well, case closed!
While I agree with your sentiments, you seem to be under the impression that cops want less crime, and will act in such a way as to reduce crime. Some of them may; the good ones will. However, if the cops reduce overall crime, then the police budget is reduced, officers are let go, power is lost, etc. It's like people who believe that the medical industry in general wants to cure diseases. If it did, it would take a HUGE financial hit. It doesn't make business sense. Now, I wish we lived in a world where humanitarian concerns overrode business concerns, but would you seriously suggest that we do? The prison industry doesn't experience unprecedented growth when you REDUCE crime, nor when you decriminalize things. Just use the old police trick and ask yourself, cui bono? Then follow the money.
Are you certain that 'preventing crime' is what cops should be doing? Don't get me wrong, I know it's all the rage right now. I'm just wondering when 'solving crimes' became 'crime prevention' and 'serving the public' became 'revenue generation'.
I have the solution to stop all crime in less than 20 years. Really, I do. It will work. All you need to do is institute the death penalty for any and all convictions. Of course, the downside to that is that when only the cops are left, they probably won't be able to procreate at a high enough rate to repopulate the Earth, but that's their own fault for not hiring enough female officers.
So, who's with me?
The book is better. They really lost a lot of the subtlety in the translation to the big screen.
I like your style.
:)
Off-topic, is that istockphoto actually you? If so, you could be my sex object any day.
This will be a wholesale raping of the American middle class, the taxpayer, the treasury, the value of the US dollar - and in 10 years, this nation will be wholly owned by foreign corporate interests.
I get it...you're posting from 10 years in the past! That's amazing!
I don't believe that statement does imply that this non-lethal (to be confirmed) device will only be used against people committing an illegal act. If an individual/s flatly refuses to comply with authourities put in place by the government they have elected (not so for all countries, obiously), then they too can expect to have this device aimed at them.
Again you are implying that the use would be valid and called for in all situations. I do not agree, and can provide much evidence of taser use against unarmed, non-dangerous people (some of whom were in diabetic seizure, and thus UNABLE to comply with any commands). Now, is it likely, in your opinion, that the documented abuse of tasers does not in any way predict the abuse of a different "less lethal" device?
You may want to revise this statement, it appears the word 'correct' may be out of context.
No, it was not. The police are NOT a disciplinary force. Let me repeat that once more. The police are NOT a disciplinary force. They are not supposed to punish criminals. That is for the courts to do. Therefore, noncompliance with authorities should be penalized by the courts, as the system was set up, and not on-the-spot vigilanteism by uniformed thugs.
Well it's a demonstratable fact that all the conflicts that the US is involved in today were started or exacerbated by small minded foreign policies of Republicans.
Really? I bet Bill Clinton would be mad at you for saying that. Besides, Democrats vote just as enthusiastically as Republicans for conflict. Here are the facts: No one makes national office in any capacity who isn't vetted. Democrats and Republicans are vetted by the same people. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no real difference between them. No matter who you vote for, it is not your interests which are being served, unless you are a large corporation or have a lot of cash for lobbying. Note that Hillary isn't talking about ending the "war". Note that NO CANDIDATE with any realistic shot is talking about ending the "war". Note also that all of the candidates who could vote for the "war" did so, minus Ron Paul, who does not have a shot.
Saying that they are different is like saying that it's different to be kicked in the spleen than to be kicked in the liver. Yes, there are technical differences there. Move your perspective up just a tiny bit, though, and you'll realize that either way you're still getting kicked in the vitals.
They have developed one. I saw it in the movie 'Orgazmo'. Seemed to work well!
I think if they use this on a crowd, the guy firing it might as well be Ensign Unnammed wearing a red shirt. You can't point that thing everywhere at once. I know I'm paranoid, but that would be a good excuse for martial law...
One would have to be a slow learner if one did not learn after the first or second time that continuing to do whatever illegal activity one is involved in will result in disciplinary action by authourities.
This sentence begs the most important question. You are here implying that this would ONLY be used against persons who have definitely committed illegal acts. You are also implying that the use of force by police for disciplinary purposes is correct. Do you actually believe either of these things?
People who are ignorant of their own history tend to vote Republican.
Fatuous people who are ignorant of the present tend to believe there is a difference between voting Republican and voting Democrat.
Religious people often think that repeating things they cannot prove so that others may believe it is somehow not proselytizing. - You
I hope that one day you'll educate yourself enough on the matter to overcome your religious ideology. - You
At no point did I assume that you're religious. - You
Why shold I bother to go through the rest of your crap? You really thought you could lie like that when the proof is only two posts up? Seriously? Good luck with life, homey.
I think Meetplace or Meetspace would be a good name for a single's bar. Perhpas 'The Meet Market'.
Is it just me, or does anyone else keep seeing 'Meatplace' instead of 'Metaplace'?