The American people define them. If European style leftism or Libertarianism had a larger following then you would find media that catered to them. It would be a money making venture for the owners of said media, so there would be no reason not to do it.
I've met several law-abiding people who would likely be murderers if they had easy access to guns.
Who are you hanging out with? And where do you live that they don't have easy access to guns? Even in "blue" American states it's not all that difficult for a non-felon to purchase a gun.
If they really wanted to do something about this, they'd discontinue the entire CallerID system and allow regular folks to use ANI [wikipedia.org] as a standard feature. That's the same system used by both toll-free numbers and emergency services like 911. Unlike CallerID, it's out-of-band and cannot be spoofed by the caller alone. It uses the billing data, the same data that the phone company uses to know whom to charge for the call. By comparison CallerID is a joke.
I've often wondered this myself. I found out the other day that Verizon Wireless has the ability to block numbers from being able to call you or text you. Family member of mine has been getting harassing phone calls. Of course the block is utterly useless because a simple caller-id block (*67 in the US) will defeat it. The phone company provides the service but can't use the ANI information?
They do the same thing with their "mobile to mobile" calling features. If you block your caller id and call someone who is "in network" they will get charged minutes as though it was an out of network call. ANI is not blocked when caller-id is but they are too stupid to use it for their own billing purposes? WTF?
Interstate commerce, don't ya know? It's the one sized catch all that works for everything from SPAM to the guy growing pot in the basement for his own personal consumption.
People who steal identities will carry on spoofing caller ID, because they already commit more serious crimes, while users of legitimate services will be inconvenienced.
What, you mean criminals won't follow the law? Say it isn't so!
White guilt means guilt over doing what the other people would have done if they were in our forefathers shoes.
Of course every non-white superpower throughout history (the Mongols, the Persians, the Arabs, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Indians) was a beacon of human rights and good will towards men. It's only the evil European powers that exploited their position in the world towards their own ends.....
If there were a credible threat on 9-10-2001 concerning box cutters, wouldn't you like to think that TSA would have banned box cutters?
That wouldn't have helped at all. The reason 9/11 worked had less to do with box cutters and more to do with the fact that we had experiences going all the way back to the 70s that suggested that you should cooperate with hijackers. They probably could have taken over the planes without weapons of any kind -- they did bluff about having bombs after all.
In the post 9/11 world I don't even think you could take over a plane with firearms. The passengers won't allow it and you'll never be able to kill all of them before they overwhelm you.
Investigations have concluded that such a plot is feasible and could bring down a plane.
Well, that begs a few questions. For starters, what good is all the explosives detection equipment we've spent millions (billions?) on if it can't detect these agents? What good is a liquids ban when you can purchase liquids in the secured portion of the terminal? Presumably a terrorist could buy off the right supplier and smuggle something in through that back door. Why the arbitrary 3oz cut off? A 20oz bottle of mountain dew is dangerous but three related passengers with 3 x 3oz bottles aren't?
In the same vein, what good is full body scanners that can't scan body cavities? A really determined individual still has one way to get something bad on board.
Do you really think that little lock will keep a thief out of your home?
Nope, but it will buy me enough time to arm myself if I'm home. If I'm not then I don't really care if he makes off with my insured property.
The problem is that someone might put something else into an empty Mt. Dew bottle that may explode when it comes into contact with a flame or electrical charge.
Blah blah blah blah. You've eaten up the FUD hook, line and sinker. Terrorists make one attempt -- that fails miserably I might add -- and you jump to the head of the line to surrender your rights.
The TSA agents have always been professional, work quickly, apologize for the inconvenience and tell me to have a good flight.
I'm glad your experiences with TSA have gone better than mine. Here is the summary of my last experience with the bastards:
TSA Drone: I need to see your ID
Me: [hands over valid NYS drivers license]
TSA Drone: This has a PO box on it, I need something with your home address.
Me: I've never heard of that requirement before.
TSA Drone: I need something with your home address on it.
Me: Is that a new requirement?
TSA Drone: I need something with your home address on it.
Me: *muttering* All I've got is this [hands over valid NYS pistol license]
TSA Drone: Your picture is glued onto this.
Me: Yeah, so? That's how it's done where I live.
TSA Drone: I need something with your physical address on it.
Me: I just handed you something with my physical address on it.
TSA Drone: I need something that I know is valid.
Me: Call the state police number on the back to verify the validity of my pistol license.
TSA Drone: I'm not allowed to do that. Do you have a passport?
Me: I have one, but not with me (domestic flight) and they don't have physical addresses on them anyway.
TSA Drone: I need another form of ID with your address on it.
Me: Then why did you just ask me for my passport? It doesn't have my address on it.
TSA Drone: Sir, why are you being difficult?
Me: I'm not, you are the one refusing to accept two valid forms of ID. Why don't you call your supervisor over?
TSA Drone: She'll tell you the same thing sir.
Me: Why don't you call your supervisor over? (two can play the repeat it over and over until they do what you want game)
TSA Drone: Do you have another form of ID?
Me: Why don't you call your supervisor over?
So the supervisor comes over, admits that the need for a physical address was something he just made up but still holds me there while they call the NYS State Police to verify the validity of my pistol license. Gotta love it.
Nope, I didn't vote for him. I did a write-in vote for "none of the above". Meaningless, I know, but I couldn't bring myself to vote for the Libertarian given his history and McCain was equally bad on civil liberties.
People check you and your luggage to confirm that you don't have any weapons
I wasn't aware my 20oz bottle of mountain dew was a weapon. "OMG, look out, he's got high fructose corn syrup and caffeine!"
I feel that "Absolute freedom, regardless of the risk to me or others" is equally as heinous.
Fortunately nobody in this thread was advocating for that. I believe I was advocating for common sense. Do you really think that pulling Grannie out of the security line and making her take off her shoes advances the security of our air transportation network? Do you really think that forcing people through full body scanners that can't scan body cavities (i.e: there's still a way for someone who is determined to smuggle something bad on board) advances the security of our air transportation network? It's all security theater. Nothing more, nothing else.
False analogy. No one is forcing you to fly. No one is forcing to fly commercially
Ah, so it's ok to treat people like common criminals as long as they aren't doing something that's "required"?
You hear it all the time... "I am willing to take more time going through airport security, since it will make the skies safer."
I want to smack those morons. The only thing was required to prevent another 9/11 style attack was a locked cockpit door and the understanding that the pilots will LAND THE PLANE IMMEDIATELY if the shit hits the fan. The passengers and crew aren't going to roll over like sheep anymore. Every attack on an airline since 9/11 (and even on 9/11, see Flight 93) has been foiled by the passengers.
That's all we needed. No body scanners, no liquids ban, no forced removal of your shoes, no security theater at all. Just plain fucking common sense. The fact that we soon won't be able to board an airplane without some Government bureaucrat looking at our genitals on a computer monitor tells me that the terrorists won.
I had donated a sizable sum of money (nearly $500) to his campaign before that reversal. After the reversal I wrote them a pretty scathing letter and received a refund of my donation. I donated every penny to the EFF. They've never lied to me and I assumed they needed the money more than Obama for America did.
I still have an image of that check lying around somewhere. I was very proud of it.
Clearly. If the framers had meant to include the internet in the 4th amendment it would have been worded along the lines of: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, series of tubes, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.....
I'm glad we elected someone with a through understanding of constitutional law and a healthy respect for our civil liberties. It's not like he reversed himself on the issue before even becoming President or anything....
Meet the new boss, same as the old. When will we learn? Vote Democrat or Republican -- the only difference is which order you will lose your rights in.
I've never tried one. I'm familiar with the concept -- had a vaporizer back in my pot smoking days -- but I don't use tobacco all that often. I'll smoke a cigar once or twice a month, that's about it.
So who is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to remain in my house while I smoke? In large parts of the US it's illegal to smoke just about anywhere else.
reduced productivity of the smokers (smoke-breaks, disease?), thus increased workload on non-smokers
That's your employers fault for allowing smoking breaks. Mine doesn't. My co-workers who smoke have to do it on their own time at the lunch hour.
increased reliance on non-medical aids, like food stamps because smokers need their smokes, damn the food
I could easily make the same claim about the person I saw at the grocery store the other day buying her beer with cash and her food with a benefits card. You wanna outlaw booze next?
3rd hand smoke (the stink smokers leave behind that lingers for days, requiring expensive steam treatments to get rid off (think hotel rooms)
Nobody has suggested hotels be required to permit people to smoke. Most usually have smoking and non-smoking rooms.
My point, jackass, was that the ALA isn't in the position to mandate dick.
And my point, dickweed, is that it's entirely appropriate to have a conversation about the proper role of government in a story about an organization that's currently lobbying the government to protect us from ourselves.
And the reason that I'm being this pedantic is that that one word changes the entire conversation from one about health and lobbying into one about teabaggers, ACORN, and guns.
I didn't bring up any of those things. This site used to lean libertarian in these matters. For example, in times past (and maybe even today) you would have found a majority of/.'ers that think the War on Drugs should be ended. Now the leftists have run amuck and take any suggestion that the government is overreaching as evidence that the person making said suggestion is some sort of right-wing nutjob itching for GWB to come back.
BTW, since you brought it up, I don't happen to agree with all that the Tea Party stands for, but I get a huge kick out of seeing the knee-jerk reaction to them by Democrats. Democrats used to talk about the value of grassroots movements and how dissent was patriotic. Now they use every dirty smear in the book in an attempt to discredit a dissenting grassroots movement. That's just hypocritical. It's also bad politics -- I know a lot of people that didn't take the Tea Party seriously until the Democrats started attacking it.
About the only place where such legislation makes sense is in the protection of children who have not yet demonstrated responsible self-sufficiency in society from harmful substances.
Shouldn't such legislation allow for the parents of said children to introduce them to the responsible consumption of such substances? I'm thinking specifically of alcohol. It's been demonstrated that countries where "underage" drinking is part of the normal culture (Italy, France) have less of a young adult binge drinking problem than countries where the culture frowns on such behavior (US/UK).
When I went to Italy our hosts gave their kids (one of whom wasn't even a teenager yet) wine with the evening meal. It was no big thing. They cut the wine with sparkling water for the youngest kid. I couldn't help but think that those kids probably aren't going to abuse alcohol in the manner that many American kids do once they leave the nest.
Slashdot Mirror
The American people define them. If European style leftism or Libertarianism had a larger following then you would find media that catered to them. It would be a money making venture for the owners of said media, so there would be no reason not to do it.
I've met several law-abiding people who would likely be murderers if they had easy access to guns.
Who are you hanging out with? And where do you live that they don't have easy access to guns? Even in "blue" American states it's not all that difficult for a non-felon to purchase a gun.
It could be 100% true that gun control would make life better for everyone
My Aunt who shot a would-be rapist would take issue with this statement.
Of course the constitution is amendable, but good luck with that.
Why amend it? They didn't bother for drug prohibition.....
If they really wanted to do something about this, they'd discontinue the entire CallerID system and allow regular folks to use ANI [wikipedia.org] as a standard feature. That's the same system used by both toll-free numbers and emergency services like 911. Unlike CallerID, it's out-of-band and cannot be spoofed by the caller alone. It uses the billing data, the same data that the phone company uses to know whom to charge for the call. By comparison CallerID is a joke.
I've often wondered this myself. I found out the other day that Verizon Wireless has the ability to block numbers from being able to call you or text you. Family member of mine has been getting harassing phone calls. Of course the block is utterly useless because a simple caller-id block (*67 in the US) will defeat it. The phone company provides the service but can't use the ANI information?
They do the same thing with their "mobile to mobile" calling features. If you block your caller id and call someone who is "in network" they will get charged minutes as though it was an out of network call. ANI is not blocked when caller-id is but they are too stupid to use it for their own billing purposes? WTF?
Interstate commerce, don't ya know? It's the one sized catch all that works for everything from SPAM to the guy growing pot in the basement for his own personal consumption.
People who steal identities will carry on spoofing caller ID, because they already commit more serious crimes, while users of legitimate services will be inconvenienced.
What, you mean criminals won't follow the law? Say it isn't so!
White guilt means guilt over doing what the other people would have done if they were in our forefathers shoes.
Of course every non-white superpower throughout history (the Mongols, the Persians, the Arabs, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Indians) was a beacon of human rights and good will towards men. It's only the evil European powers that exploited their position in the world towards their own ends.....
You've got a +5 funny right now, but you won't think this is a laughing matter when Philip Baker Hall shows up at Mount Vernon to collect the debt....
You could make the same claim about 7 December 1941. Hindsight is a bitch, isn't it?
It's a pain in the ass, sure, but I'd rather have a sore ass than a dead child.
Of course your child is in more danger driving to the airport than he would be on the plane, even absent the post 9/11 security enhancements.
If there were a credible threat on 9-10-2001 concerning box cutters, wouldn't you like to think that TSA would have banned box cutters?
That wouldn't have helped at all. The reason 9/11 worked had less to do with box cutters and more to do with the fact that we had experiences going all the way back to the 70s that suggested that you should cooperate with hijackers. They probably could have taken over the planes without weapons of any kind -- they did bluff about having bombs after all.
In the post 9/11 world I don't even think you could take over a plane with firearms. The passengers won't allow it and you'll never be able to kill all of them before they overwhelm you.
Investigations have concluded that such a plot is feasible and could bring down a plane.
Well, that begs a few questions. For starters, what good is all the explosives detection equipment we've spent millions (billions?) on if it can't detect these agents? What good is a liquids ban when you can purchase liquids in the secured portion of the terminal? Presumably a terrorist could buy off the right supplier and smuggle something in through that back door. Why the arbitrary 3oz cut off? A 20oz bottle of mountain dew is dangerous but three related passengers with 3 x 3oz bottles aren't?
In the same vein, what good is full body scanners that can't scan body cavities? A really determined individual still has one way to get something bad on board.
Do you really think that little lock will keep a thief out of your home?
Nope, but it will buy me enough time to arm myself if I'm home. If I'm not then I don't really care if he makes off with my insured property.
The problem is that someone might put something else into an empty Mt. Dew bottle that may explode when it comes into contact with a flame or electrical charge.
Blah blah blah blah. You've eaten up the FUD hook, line and sinker. Terrorists make one attempt -- that fails miserably I might add -- and you jump to the head of the line to surrender your rights.
The TSA agents have always been professional, work quickly, apologize for the inconvenience and tell me to have a good flight.
I'm glad your experiences with TSA have gone better than mine. Here is the summary of my last experience with the bastards:
TSA Drone: I need to see your ID
Me: [hands over valid NYS drivers license]
TSA Drone: This has a PO box on it, I need something with your home address.
Me: I've never heard of that requirement before.
TSA Drone: I need something with your home address on it.
Me: Is that a new requirement?
TSA Drone: I need something with your home address on it.
Me: *muttering* All I've got is this [hands over valid NYS pistol license]
TSA Drone: Your picture is glued onto this.
Me: Yeah, so? That's how it's done where I live.
TSA Drone: I need something with your physical address on it.
Me: I just handed you something with my physical address on it.
TSA Drone: I need something that I know is valid.
Me: Call the state police number on the back to verify the validity of my pistol license.
TSA Drone: I'm not allowed to do that. Do you have a passport?
Me: I have one, but not with me (domestic flight) and they don't have physical addresses on them anyway.
TSA Drone: I need another form of ID with your address on it.
Me: Then why did you just ask me for my passport? It doesn't have my address on it.
TSA Drone: Sir, why are you being difficult?
Me: I'm not, you are the one refusing to accept two valid forms of ID. Why don't you call your supervisor over?
TSA Drone: She'll tell you the same thing sir.
Me: Why don't you call your supervisor over? (two can play the repeat it over and over until they do what you want game)
TSA Drone: Do you have another form of ID?
Me: Why don't you call your supervisor over?
So the supervisor comes over, admits that the need for a physical address was something he just made up but still holds me there while they call the NYS State Police to verify the validity of my pistol license. Gotta love it.
Did it get him your vote?
Nope, I didn't vote for him. I did a write-in vote for "none of the above". Meaningless, I know, but I couldn't bring myself to vote for the Libertarian given his history and McCain was equally bad on civil liberties.
People check you and your luggage to confirm that you don't have any weapons
I wasn't aware my 20oz bottle of mountain dew was a weapon. "OMG, look out, he's got high fructose corn syrup and caffeine!"
I feel that "Absolute freedom, regardless of the risk to me or others" is equally as heinous.
Fortunately nobody in this thread was advocating for that. I believe I was advocating for common sense. Do you really think that pulling Grannie out of the security line and making her take off her shoes advances the security of our air transportation network? Do you really think that forcing people through full body scanners that can't scan body cavities (i.e: there's still a way for someone who is determined to smuggle something bad on board) advances the security of our air transportation network? It's all security theater. Nothing more, nothing else.
False analogy. No one is forcing you to fly. No one is forcing to fly commercially
Ah, so it's ok to treat people like common criminals as long as they aren't doing something that's "required"?
You hear it all the time... "I am willing to take more time going through airport security, since it will make the skies safer."
I want to smack those morons. The only thing was required to prevent another 9/11 style attack was a locked cockpit door and the understanding that the pilots will LAND THE PLANE IMMEDIATELY if the shit hits the fan. The passengers and crew aren't going to roll over like sheep anymore. Every attack on an airline since 9/11 (and even on 9/11, see Flight 93) has been foiled by the passengers.
That's all we needed. No body scanners, no liquids ban, no forced removal of your shoes, no security theater at all. Just plain fucking common sense. The fact that we soon won't be able to board an airplane without some Government bureaucrat looking at our genitals on a computer monitor tells me that the terrorists won.
But if he hadn't gone to DC he wouldn't have gotten "I'm willing to stand up to my base" street cred.
I had donated a sizable sum of money (nearly $500) to his campaign before that reversal. After the reversal I wrote them a pretty scathing letter and received a refund of my donation. I donated every penny to the EFF. They've never lied to me and I assumed they needed the money more than Obama for America did.
I still have an image of that check lying around somewhere. I was very proud of it.
What exactly is the problem with just getting a search warrant?
I'm not sure but I bet you $100 it involves child pornography or terrorism.
Clearly. If the framers had meant to include the internet in the 4th amendment it would have been worded along the lines of: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, series of tubes, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.....
I'm glad we elected someone with a through understanding of constitutional law and a healthy respect for our civil liberties. It's not like he reversed himself on the issue before even becoming President or anything....
Meet the new boss, same as the old. When will we learn? Vote Democrat or Republican -- the only difference is which order you will lose your rights in.
I've never tried one. I'm familiar with the concept -- had a vaporizer back in my pot smoking days -- but I don't use tobacco all that often. I'll smoke a cigar once or twice a month, that's about it.
second hand smoke
So who is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to remain in my house while I smoke? In large parts of the US it's illegal to smoke just about anywhere else.
reduced productivity of the smokers (smoke-breaks, disease?), thus increased workload on non-smokers
That's your employers fault for allowing smoking breaks. Mine doesn't. My co-workers who smoke have to do it on their own time at the lunch hour.
increased reliance on non-medical aids, like food stamps because smokers need their smokes, damn the food
I could easily make the same claim about the person I saw at the grocery store the other day buying her beer with cash and her food with a benefits card. You wanna outlaw booze next?
3rd hand smoke (the stink smokers leave behind that lingers for days, requiring expensive steam treatments to get rid off (think hotel rooms)
Nobody has suggested hotels be required to permit people to smoke. Most usually have smoking and non-smoking rooms.
My point, jackass, was that the ALA isn't in the position to mandate dick.
And my point, dickweed, is that it's entirely appropriate to have a conversation about the proper role of government in a story about an organization that's currently lobbying the government to protect us from ourselves.
And the reason that I'm being this pedantic is that that one word changes the entire conversation from one about health and lobbying into one about teabaggers, ACORN, and guns.
I didn't bring up any of those things. This site used to lean libertarian in these matters. For example, in times past (and maybe even today) you would have found a majority of /.'ers that think the War on Drugs should be ended. Now the leftists have run amuck and take any suggestion that the government is overreaching as evidence that the person making said suggestion is some sort of right-wing nutjob itching for GWB to come back.
BTW, since you brought it up, I don't happen to agree with all that the Tea Party stands for, but I get a huge kick out of seeing the knee-jerk reaction to them by Democrats. Democrats used to talk about the value of grassroots movements and how dissent was patriotic. Now they use every dirty smear in the book in an attempt to discredit a dissenting grassroots movement. That's just hypocritical. It's also bad politics -- I know a lot of people that didn't take the Tea Party seriously until the Democrats started attacking it.
About the only place where such legislation makes sense is in the protection of children who have not yet demonstrated responsible self-sufficiency in society from harmful substances.
Shouldn't such legislation allow for the parents of said children to introduce them to the responsible consumption of such substances? I'm thinking specifically of alcohol. It's been demonstrated that countries where "underage" drinking is part of the normal culture (Italy, France) have less of a young adult binge drinking problem than countries where the culture frowns on such behavior (US/UK).
When I went to Italy our hosts gave their kids (one of whom wasn't even a teenager yet) wine with the evening meal. It was no big thing. They cut the wine with sparkling water for the youngest kid. I couldn't help but think that those kids probably aren't going to abuse alcohol in the manner that many American kids do once they leave the nest.
News Flash, you idiots: you are not owning class fat cats and you never will be so stop siding with them all the time
Why do you assume that someone who wants to be free to smoke cigarettes or engage in other harmful vices is siding with the "owning class fat cats"?