AFIAK, drivers in the US must carry a license around with them, in person, whenever they drive - no such legislation here.
Depends on the state law, I think. In some states, if you identify yourself to the cop's satisfaction without a license, they'll give you a ticket and tell you that it'll be waived if you present the license before the court date on the ticket. Besides, a driver's license is a license for a specific activity - driving - not a general ID card despite creeping legislation to make it such. I have to problem having to carry a driver's license to drive, as long as I don't have to show it at other times.
Yes, I am sure your hunting rifle will stack up excellently against a tank or assault rifle.
The insurgents in Iraq (and Vietnam before that) seem to be doing fine against the most powerful army in the world. Besides, who's to say that American troops would fight other Americans? A lot of them (especially Nat'l Guard which is sort of a state/local organization) may very well join a mutiny against oppressive government policies.
Sorry, too late, the Second Amendment has been dead for about 30 years. You can still go hunting, or shoot at a range, provided you fill out lots of paper work and pay your licencing fees... but the kind of armed citicenry the constitution intended as a last defense against tyranny only exists in places like Switzerland.
A few states (AK and VT) don't require permits for any guns. A majority of the rest nowadays are "shall issue" for concealed carry handgun permits. Rifles and shotguns generally don't even require permits. BTW - if you live in NJ, MA, or DC, disregard this since those states have gone apeshit in taking away gun rights (although, interestingly, you need a permit to purchase a handgun in NJ or carry concealed, but not to own one in your own home. If it's a gift from out of state, inherited or whatever, you're fine...)
when the REAL question comes you won't spike as much because your pain reaction is absent.
But would a "lie" response be the same level as a pain response? What if all the lies elicit less of a reaction than the control questions? I'd assume that'd raise suspicion too.
Fairly certain it was flagged and reviewed. If that's the compromise, I think I could deal with that.
Why have any censorship at all? Anyway, don't you think that people looking to watch movies for free would rather download off of P2P. I don't see something that uses Flash in a browser window to play video as a large potential infringement problem.
So your theory is that because someone got pissy about a polygraph test, and got fired for it, they should turn traitor and help foreign governments, presumably with nuclear technology?
Nah, just keeping the snark ratio at 1:1. Sarcasm begets sarcasm.
So if an employee comes in to drive a fork-lift truck, but his eyes are glazed over and he stinks of weed, and you going to let him do his job?
That's a level of impairment that's obvious. If an employee comes into work impaired, no, I don't think he should be allowed to work if it endangers safety. But what he smoked at a party last weekend is not my, your, not his boss's business as long as he doesn't come into work impaired.
Of course truckers shouldn't smoke pot or drink alcohol
They shouldn't work while they're affected by the drug. What they do on weekends or vacations is their own choice, so long as they come to work sober and alert.
If you do the sell in the "proper" way (contract, taxes) there's nothing to fear as you can demonstrate the money came from a legal commercial transaction. The buyer could get a "bit" of attention, though.
Absolutely. But there are other considerations as well, like how to transport several hundred thousand dollars of cash without risk of "loss." Wire transfer into your account and letting the seller deal with the cash is a lot tidier.
There is actually a law, the The Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 which requires recipients of federal grants to maintain a drug-free workplace. Part of the whole war on drugs nonsense.
It doesn't require drug testing, however. This according to the Department of Labor site and the text of the law itself. Basically, it requires employers and employees to sign statements that drug use in the workplace is forbidden and can result in loss of employment.
And why would a drug dealer or a loan shark need a regular job?
They wouldn't. My point was that debts to certain people would be unlikely to show up on a credit report. And, breaking kneecaps is a far more effective threat to people than foreclosure or bad credit. So people with debts to criminals may well be *more* amenable to blackmail.
Why is being a "scientist" held in such high regard. I'm a principal scientist on my project, but that doesn't make me too good to go through the same screening process as the "lowly technicians."
Well, for one thing, a brilliant scientist is less easily replacable than a lowly technician, so you want him to stay with the "company."
If the law is stupid, useless, and outdated, why aren't you fighting to change it?
You can't change everything. And there are more ways to change a law than one. Plenty of laws have fallen by the wayside while being ignored and disused while still being "in the books." Things like Virginia having a law against a black man marrying a white woman until two years ago or Connecticut(?) prescribing the death penalty for adultery.
I sure hope he tells them that one down at the unemployment office!
I doubt that he'll stay unemployed long. There are always employers outside the US willing to pay for services. A pleasant thought for nuclear scientists, no doubt:/
However, if you're breaking the law just because you feel like it, that's another story.
If you're breaking the law because the law is stupid, useless, and outdated, and you're not harming anyone whilst doing so, it doesn't upset me one bit. Just try not to get caught if you're a friend of relative or mine, because that'll make me sad.
You've committed a crime that can be used to blackmail you.
Actually, if there's a policy of dismissal for minor offenses that don't impact work performance, blackmail becomes more likely. If someone brings the average police department evidence that someone was merely smoking weed, they'd probably ask if they had anything better to do. To an employer this might be a much bigger deal.
Drug testing at LANL is not unreasonable. Every job I have considered over the last 15 years has required random drug testing.
That doesn't make it reasonable, just an unfortunate fact of life. BTW, drug testing by private employers has actually decreased slightly since the early 1990s, since some have figured out that it costs without helping the bottom line.
Although still not perfect. Drug dealers and loan sharks would be unlikely to report outstanding debts. They tend to have other slightly more effective ways of dealing with the situation.
However, it is illegal, so someone who smokes pot is already showing that they have a penchant for ignoring laws that they don't think apply to them.
Oh, for gahd's sake, just because you break a few minor laws does *not* mean that you'd be more likely sell out your country to the enemy-of-the-day. By your "slippery slope" logic, anyone who gets caught for speeding should be pre-emptively shot. After all, who's to say when they'll move from speeding to treason?
I don't even think that the employers even CARE if the test is accurate...
It also weeds out people that answers questions without thinking. From what I've heard, if you interview with the NSA or CIA and they ask "have you ever given money to a foreign organization?" and your answer is an unthinking "no", this weeds you out. After all, you buy stuff from foreign companies all of the time without even realizing it.
Have I met, worked with, or been exposed to obvious stoners that are clearly and continually unfocused, un-energetic, bad on short-term memory, and always looking for free food at meetings?
There's a huge difference between drug use and drug *abuse*. Profile based on behaviour, not based on chemical testing. If someone's a lazy obnoxious git, by all means fire him if he doesn't shape up, regardless of the reason.
This is like the difference between a red-faced drunkard and someone that has a glass of wine at dinner.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends on the state law, I think. In some states, if you identify yourself to the cop's satisfaction without a license, they'll give you a ticket and tell you that it'll be waived if you present the license before the court date on the ticket. Besides, a driver's license is a license for a specific activity - driving - not a general ID card despite creeping legislation to make it such. I have to problem having to carry a driver's license to drive, as long as I don't have to show it at other times.
-b.
The insurgents in Iraq (and Vietnam before that) seem to be doing fine against the most powerful army in the world. Besides, who's to say that American troops would fight other Americans? A lot of them (especially Nat'l Guard which is sort of a state/local organization) may very well join a mutiny against oppressive government policies.
-b.
A few states (AK and VT) don't require permits for any guns. A majority of the rest nowadays are "shall issue" for concealed carry handgun permits. Rifles and shotguns generally don't even require permits. BTW - if you live in NJ, MA, or DC, disregard this since those states have gone apeshit in taking away gun rights (although, interestingly, you need a permit to purchase a handgun in NJ or carry concealed, but not to own one in your own home. If it's a gift from out of state, inherited or whatever, you're fine...)
-b.
But would a "lie" response be the same level as a pain response? What if all the lies elicit less of a reaction than the control questions? I'd assume that'd raise suspicion too.
-b.
Why have any censorship at all? Anyway, don't you think that people looking to watch movies for free would rather download off of P2P. I don't see something that uses Flash in a browser window to play video as a large potential infringement problem.
-b.
Better yet, patent it and send all royalties to the EFF. The "industry" can only use it at "their own expense" - in more ways than one :)
-b.
Nah, just keeping the snark ratio at 1:1. Sarcasm begets sarcasm.
-b.
That's a level of impairment that's obvious. If an employee comes into work impaired, no, I don't think he should be allowed to work if it endangers safety. But what he smoked at a party last weekend is not my, your, not his boss's business as long as he doesn't come into work impaired.
-b.
If you make it a felony, you make blackmail *more* likely, not less!
-b.
Not more than starvation...
-b.
They shouldn't work while they're affected by the drug. What they do on weekends or vacations is their own choice, so long as they come to work sober and alert.
-b.
Absolutely. But there are other considerations as well, like how to transport several hundred thousand dollars of cash without risk of "loss." Wire transfer into your account and letting the seller deal with the cash is a lot tidier.
-b.
It doesn't require drug testing, however. This according to the Department of Labor site and the text of the law itself. Basically, it requires employers and employees to sign statements that drug use in the workplace is forbidden and can result in loss of employment.
-b.
They wouldn't. My point was that debts to certain people would be unlikely to show up on a credit report. And, breaking kneecaps is a far more effective threat to people than foreclosure or bad credit. So people with debts to criminals may well be *more* amenable to blackmail.
-b.
Well, for one thing, a brilliant scientist is less easily replacable than a lowly technician, so you want him to stay with the "company."
-b.
You can't change everything. And there are more ways to change a law than one. Plenty of laws have fallen by the wayside while being ignored and disused while still being "in the books." Things like Virginia having a law against a black man marrying a white woman until two years ago or Connecticut(?) prescribing the death penalty for adultery.
-b.
I doubt that he'll stay unemployed long. There are always employers outside the US willing to pay for services. A pleasant thought for nuclear scientists, no doubt :/
-b.
If you're breaking the law because the law is stupid, useless, and outdated, and you're not harming anyone whilst doing so, it doesn't upset me one bit. Just try not to get caught if you're a friend of relative or mine, because that'll make me sad.
-b.
Actually, if there's a policy of dismissal for minor offenses that don't impact work performance, blackmail becomes more likely. If someone brings the average police department evidence that someone was merely smoking weed, they'd probably ask if they had anything better to do. To an employer this might be a much bigger deal.
-b.
That doesn't make it reasonable, just an unfortunate fact of life. BTW, drug testing by private employers has actually decreased slightly since the early 1990s, since some have figured out that it costs without helping the bottom line.
-b.
Although still not perfect. Drug dealers and loan sharks would be unlikely to report outstanding debts. They tend to have other slightly more effective ways of dealing with the situation.
-b.
Oh, for gahd's sake, just because you break a few minor laws does *not* mean that you'd be more likely sell out your country to the enemy-of-the-day. By your "slippery slope" logic, anyone who gets caught for speeding should be pre-emptively shot. After all, who's to say when they'll move from speeding to treason?
-b.
Bah, that's so 1990s. Now they just provide free sample packets of polonium to bosses to help them deal with disloyal employees.
-b.
It also weeds out people that answers questions without thinking. From what I've heard, if you interview with the NSA or CIA and they ask "have you ever given money to a foreign organization?" and your answer is an unthinking "no", this weeds you out. After all, you buy stuff from foreign companies all of the time without even realizing it.
-b.
There's a huge difference between drug use and drug *abuse*. Profile based on behaviour, not based on chemical testing. If someone's a lazy obnoxious git, by all means fire him if he doesn't shape up, regardless of the reason.
This is like the difference between a red-faced drunkard and someone that has a glass of wine at dinner.
-b.