Well technically he still has the right to refuse an unlawful search of his person...
For those unfamiliar with costco they are not searching your person. They ask you to show your receipt and they take a quick look through and under your shopping cart.
Thankyou, some of the posters above were making it sound like you were being given a full cavity body search at gunpoint.
That goes both ways. I have a concealed carry permit and I DO carry my firearm everywhere. If a security guard were to so much as grab a gun in a manner threatening towards me, I'll blow his fucking head off.
Hey guys, it's the Navy Seal guy with over 300 confirmed kills! Let's see if we can feel his muscles.
Many states, including my home state of WV, have "stand your ground" laws where the bar to use deadly force is very low. In WV all that is required is a notice posted "Private property. No trespassing. Violators will be shot" notice. It is quite silly really. Our stand your ground law puts Florida's to shame!
If I saw a sign that actually said THAT, I'd be pretty STUPID to trespass, now wouldn't I?
As a non-American, if I saw a sign like that I'd assume the owner was joking, and if I did get shot I'd expect the police to arrest the arsebiscuit for attempted murder.
Judging by the amount of sheer asshattery in this thread, if I worked as a store security guard in the US, I'd take my own gun in and shoot myself in the head at the end of the first day.
Interestingly most people seem to think that those people have some power to actually stop or detain you. I to just keep on walking, the worst that has ever happened is that person at the door yelled "Hey you stop! I need to check your receipt!" If you choose to not stop and they attempt to detain you the law is on your side since you can bring false imprisonment charges against them provided you haven't actually done anything else other than leave or attempt to leave with your legally purchased items.
If you haven't stolen anything, why would you decide to act like an arsehole? Does the little thrill of power over annoying someone on minimum wage doing his job make you feel better about yourself?
One of the 'good actors' was the first to develop and has been the only one to ever use nuclear weapons. Despite there being no military reason for it other than to demonstrate a more efficient method of killing civilians than anything that had been developed before.
This is just another way to say "The US is bad and everyone else is oh-so-wonderful" which is a popular theme around/.
No, it's a way of saying "the US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons against mass civilian targets." Whether you think it's justified or not does not affect the truth of that statement.
> I can't think of any state that managed to stave off invasion because it had chemical weapons...
Yep. If you're fighting a modern military, it will be effectively immune to chemical or biological weapons. The only thing you can do with those is to get very lucky with a sneak attack, or attack civillian populations.
I think when Tony Blair was twatting on about Sadaam Hussein having WMDs that would reach Britain, the assumption was they would be used to attack civilians. If they had existed, that would have been a good reason for Britain not to invade Iraq. So it was lucky they didn't exist and we did invade...Hold on.
Do they not lease a connection, with a certain speed, and that's that? Data caps are a thing of the nineties...
Yes, obviously the entire article is wrong, and all Indians have unlimited high speed broadband internet access, so why on Earth they're accessing a single limited, mobile website is a total mystery, because self evidently India is exactly like South Korea or California in terms of wealth and communications infrastructure.
There is a lot of resistance to the idea of people being victims in any way here on slashdot.
I can only guess that it is something to do with the whole Ayn Rand/superman philosophy beloved of software developer libertarians.
"I make a few hundred thousand a year because I got a Computer Science degree and work in silicon Valley, therefore so can anyone else, and someone who is not at least reasonably rich is just a loser responsible for their own poverty, stupidity and poor choice of career and domicile."
The world is not a black and white as you seem to see it. In most cases both parties carry some blame with the majority going to the perp.
From there it's a short step to the professional criminal's view of (non-criminal) people as "mug punters". I suppose it helps soothe what little conscience you have, if you're not particularly bright or possessed of self-awareness.
As much as it sounds like a cop out, leaving it to future generation who will no doubt have better technology isn't such a bad idea. As a poor example, we didn't have the capability to combat microbiology 200 years ago, now it's trivial (well in some cases at least). Who knows, when space travel becomes cheap we could shoot it all into the sun, or maybe someone will invent a genetically engineered Kaiju that eats Plutonium and shits out crude oil. As long as the costs of long term storage and maintenance are taken into account, I have no problem with this approach.
You honestly couldn't make this shit up if you were trying to make an anti-nuclear point.
That's an infitnite liability problem, not a nuclear power problem.
If nuclear power has an infinite liability problem, then that is a nuclear power problem.
I don't object to sensibly done nuclear power, I do object to private companies making a profit out of it at the expense of taxpayers who have to fund the downstream decomissioning and storage costs and pick up the bill in case of any unfortunate accidents.
"No coloreds" was in many places a law, not a business rule. The argument that many free market supporters make (myself included) is that the market would have naturally moved toward inclusiveness. Sure, some assholes will still be assholes. And thinking people would avoid those stores, diminishing their market presence until they disappeared naturally.
So racism only existed because of government interference in the free market?
Society has a very clear interest in preventing you from running someone over in your car, which trumps your claim of religious freedom.
It's much more debatable whether society has, for example, such an interest in forcing you to participate in a gay wedding.
How can you be forced to participate in a gay wedding? Do you mean the priest? I can't believe that a gay couple getting married would want an unwilling priest to officiate.
I'm not religious, and I value gay rights. But I also value to the right of people to do as they please, and not be forced to serve anyone they disagree with.
So it's fine for a shop to refuse to serve black people?
That's a posible viewpoint, it just means that you should admit you're supporting racism.
Just because we can 3D print small plastic widgets now does not mean that we will be printing cars, helicopters and the like on our home printers in a couple of years time.
There is a difference between welcoming genuine technological advances and living in a fantasy world.
Slashdot Mirror
Well technically he still has the right to refuse an unlawful search of his person ...
For those unfamiliar with costco they are not searching your person. They ask you to show your receipt and they take a quick look through and under your shopping cart.
Thankyou, some of the posters above were making it sound like you were being given a full cavity body search at gunpoint.
I have never, and will never, submit to exit searches like that.
They'll have to pry that receipt from your cold, dead fingers.
That goes both ways. I have a concealed carry permit and I DO carry my firearm everywhere. If a security guard were to so much as grab a gun in a manner threatening towards me, I'll blow his fucking head off.
Hey guys, it's the Navy Seal guy with over 300 confirmed kills! Let's see if we can feel his muscles.
Many states, including my home state of WV, have "stand your ground" laws where the bar to use deadly force is very low. In WV all that is required is a notice posted "Private property. No trespassing. Violators will be shot" notice. It is quite silly really. Our stand your ground law puts Florida's to shame!
If I saw a sign that actually said THAT, I'd be pretty STUPID to trespass, now wouldn't I?
As a non-American, if I saw a sign like that I'd assume the owner was joking, and if I did get shot I'd expect the police to arrest the arsebiscuit for attempted murder.
Judging by the amount of sheer asshattery in this thread, if I worked as a store security guard in the US, I'd take my own gun in and shoot myself in the head at the end of the first day.
Interestingly most people seem to think that those people have some power to actually stop or detain you. I to just keep on walking, the worst that has ever happened is that person at the door yelled "Hey you stop! I need to check your receipt!" If you choose to not stop and they attempt to detain you the law is on your side since you can bring false imprisonment charges against them provided you haven't actually done anything else other than leave or attempt to leave with your legally purchased items.
If you haven't stolen anything, why would you decide to act like an arsehole? Does the little thrill of power over annoying someone on minimum wage doing his job make you feel better about yourself?
I don't get it.
I doubt that any of the "good actors" would ever use a nuclear device first.
Well, they already did. Haven't you heard about Little Boy or Fat Man?
That's different, the US was at war. Er...
One of the 'good actors' was the first to develop and has been the only one to ever use nuclear weapons. Despite there being no military reason for it other than to demonstrate a more efficient method of killing civilians than anything that had been developed before.
This is just another way to say "The US is bad and everyone else is oh-so-wonderful" which is a popular theme around /.
No, it's a way of saying "the US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons against mass civilian targets." Whether you think it's justified or not does not affect the truth of that statement.
What? Bush lied? Obama lied? Say it isn't so!
Whatever your view of Obama, you can hardly blame him for the Iraq invasion in 2003 when Bush was president.
> I can't think of any state that managed to stave off invasion because it had chemical weapons...
Yep. If you're fighting a modern military, it will be effectively immune to chemical or biological weapons. The only thing you can do with those is to get very lucky with a sneak attack, or attack civillian populations.
I think when Tony Blair was twatting on about Sadaam Hussein having WMDs that would reach Britain, the assumption was they would be used to attack civilians. If they had existed, that would have been a good reason for Britain not to invade Iraq. So it was lucky they didn't exist and we did invade...Hold on.
I don't think anyone is saying we need to start banning people who want to get educated, of course education is a right.
But it's not an entitlement either.
And I don't quite understand how education can be a right if you're not actually entitled to an education.
Or do you mean it in the sense that I have a "right" to drive a Ferrari and live in a palace?
Do they not lease a connection, with a certain speed, and that's that? Data caps are a thing of the nineties...
Yes, obviously the entire article is wrong, and all Indians have unlimited high speed broadband internet access, so why on Earth they're accessing a single limited, mobile website is a total mystery, because self evidently India is exactly like South Korea or California in terms of wealth and communications infrastructure.
I can only guess that it is something to do with the whole Ayn Rand/superman philosophy beloved of software developer libertarians.
"I make a few hundred thousand a year because I got a Computer Science degree and work in silicon Valley, therefore so can anyone else, and someone who is not at least reasonably rich is just a loser responsible for their own poverty, stupidity and poor choice of career and domicile."
The world is not a black and white as you seem to see it. In most cases both parties carry some blame with the majority going to the perp.
From there it's a short step to the professional criminal's view of (non-criminal) people as "mug punters". I suppose it helps soothe what little conscience you have, if you're not particularly bright or possessed of self-awareness.
Do you explore a 4 meter boulder? Or do you just examine it?
If you sent astro-mites, I'm sure that would count as exploration.
Yeah? And how do you account for superclusters?
What do you mean? An African or European supercluster?
As much as it sounds like a cop out, leaving it to future generation who will no doubt have better technology isn't such a bad idea. As a poor example, we didn't have the capability to combat microbiology 200 years ago, now it's trivial (well in some cases at least). Who knows, when space travel becomes cheap we could shoot it all into the sun, or maybe someone will invent a genetically engineered Kaiju that eats Plutonium and shits out crude oil. As long as the costs of long term storage and maintenance are taken into account, I have no problem with this approach.
You honestly couldn't make this shit up if you were trying to make an anti-nuclear point.
With friends like you...
That's an infitnite liability problem, not a nuclear power problem.
If nuclear power has an infinite liability problem, then that is a nuclear power problem.
I don't object to sensibly done nuclear power, I do object to private companies making a profit out of it at the expense of taxpayers who have to fund the downstream decomissioning and storage costs and pick up the bill in case of any unfortunate accidents.
Obviously, I'm going to have to start a holy burger war to resolve whose right.
That would be a flame war.
*rimshot*
"No coloreds" was in many places a law, not a business rule. The argument that many free market supporters make (myself included) is that the market would have naturally moved toward inclusiveness. Sure, some assholes will still be assholes. And thinking people would avoid those stores, diminishing their market presence until they disappeared naturally.
So racism only existed because of government interference in the free market?
Who knew?
Society has a very clear interest in preventing you from running someone over in your car, which trumps your claim of religious freedom.
It's much more debatable whether society has, for example, such an interest in forcing you to participate in a gay wedding.
How can you be forced to participate in a gay wedding? Do you mean the priest? I can't believe that a gay couple getting married would want an unwilling priest to officiate.
I'm not religious, and I value gay rights. But I also value to the right of people to do as they please, and not be forced to serve anyone they disagree with.
So it's fine for a shop to refuse to serve black people?
That's a posible viewpoint, it just means that you should admit you're supporting racism.
In the UK we often refer to businesses/corporations in the plural. E.g. "Sainsbury's are having an Easter egg sale."
I'm left handed you insensitive clod!
Then if you use your right hand it's like someone else is doing it for you. Apparently.
I bet no one ever accused you of thinking big.
Just because we can 3D print small plastic widgets now does not mean that we will be printing cars, helicopters and the like on our home printers in a couple of years time.
There is a difference between welcoming genuine technological advances and living in a fantasy world.